James Cameron + Newsweek Criticise 'Star Wars'

Double post. I'm sorry.

 

I think [Event Horizon] owes more to The Shining than anything else.

I beg to differ, appleseed. Anyways, I was merely making some of those points (regarding Cameron) to play devil's advocate and propagate some discussion. I love all of the "Star Wars" films, not equally, but I feel that each one has its own merits. I have previously stated that I find the thread author's underlying argument to be suspect and unfounded at best. In fact, I am no longer certain as to the point of the argument, let alone being able to discern the argument itself from a series of rambling and contradictory statements. Films such as "Oliver!", "The Greatest Show on Earth", "How Green Was My Valley", and "Around the World in 80 Days" were huge financial and critical successes in their time; I know of few people willing to defend their artistry these days (excepting perhaps John Ford's "How Green Was My Valley", which is a good film). Yes, I have mentioned those titles before, but it has become increasingly evident to me that perhaps it was necessary to cite them once again. Countless, and I mean countless films that are now deemed to be classics, were the subject of much derision upon their initial release: practically anything and everything from Bresson to Welles to Kubrick to Renoir, and so forth. I really don't know what other evidence to submit. When Peter Jackson, Cameron, Mel Gibson, Sam Mendes, and Steven Soderbergh, amongst others, all of whom are extaordinarily talented, have won directing Oscars, and yet the likes of Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Ingmar Bergman, Yasujiro Ozu, Robert Altman, Stanley Kubrick, and Akira Kurosawa etc., have not, what credence should be given to public opinion, awards ceremonies, critical acclaim, and box-office figures? These general inconsistencies prove only that more discerning critics should not be easily swayed by such matters, and consider these issues in a greater context. It's all arbitrary.

 

I have a hard time believing that, before things like Dark Angel and Jacques Cameron's Deep Sea Adventure, James Cameron couldn't make ANY movie he wanted.

It remains to be seen what will happen with Cameron, whether he ends up going the Francis Ford Coppola route or he actually recaptures the magic with another movie/franchise. But, with this guy's track record in taking money and making money, I have a hard time buying that no studio would trust its finances in his hands.

Certainly, the more time he spends in the deep ocean being Jacques Cousteau, the more he loses his potential to commit Hollywood to fund a project, but the man is proven both as a writer and a director. They wanted him to make T3, but Cameron wanted no part of it (except the money).

I think the problem isn't that Hollywood isn't willing to commit to serious sci-fi (It IS, it's just that it lacks the right franchise/director). It's that Cameron is going off on a tangent, trying to do more "artsy" things now that he's made all his money.

 

"I think the problem isn't that Hollywood isn't willing to commit to serious sci-fi (It IS, it's just that it lacks the right franchise/director)."
-All_Powerful_Jedi


Hollywood is very unsure about whether to make serious science fiction. I suggest you pick up a book called "I, Robot the Illustrated Screenplay" (it has nothing to do with the Will Smith movie.) I was written by Harlan Ellison based on the Asimov stories. Hollywood won't and will not make it into a movie. It is a brilliant script of complex characters and a great plot. There are great minds working for good films they just won't be made.

Ellison and Asimov both have introductions in the book which explains the story behind the script.

In the introduction Dr. Asimov writes,
"Secondly, Harlan's screenplay came after teh motion picture Star Wars had appeared, and Hollywood people are not exactly known for their ablity to break out of a money-making bond. Since Star Wars had coined millions, Harland was asked to make the robots "cute," like R2-D2, and they also wanted him to make Susan Calvin young and pretty like Princess Leia.

Thirdly, Harlan is not known for his equanimity and pliability. When he is asked to do something stupid, he is quite likely to say "this is stupid," with some ornamental additions of his own. And Hollywood executives are likely to take this amiss."*

Ellison's screenplay again had nothing to do with the actual I, Robot film (where they made Susan pretty and changed the entire story, concept and vision of the Asimov stories.) Hollywood makes what will make money and they don't give serious SF a chance.

-Seldon

*Taken from an introduction by Isaac Asimov in Harlan Ellison's I, Robot teh Illustrated Screenplay. It was published by Simon & Shuster INC....1978

 

Here's an interesting fact: On the documentary DVD that comes with the Original Trilogy DVD release in the "Legacy of Star Wars" segment James Cameron is quoted as saying; 'When he saw Star Wars ANH he quit being a truck driver and got into movie making'.

So,'if' he's criticising now... then what was he on when he said that??

Seems to me the man liked SW enough that he considered it to be a large part of his inspiration to become a Director.

IMO that is praise not criticism...

 

Don't get me wrong, Hollywood is very hesitant about a lot of sci-fi projects and butchers pretty much anything by the likes of Asimov, Heinlein, and others.

I think Hollywood WANTS to make a serious sci-fi movie, it just hasn't found the one with the right elements of T&A and the comedic black sidekick, that's all. You can make a serious sci-fi movie for the popcorn crowd, and I think Cameron is proof of that. The desire is out there, and successful sci-fi franchsies certainly are some of the biggest and long-lasting (Star Wars and Star Trek, though Trek has been losing money steadily over the years).

 

'Right' elements of T&A? Comedic black sidekick? I wouldn't read that book, much less watch that movie.

 

" Anybody in here who thinks that a good movie will sell-itself has a very poor understanding of the movie industry and audience psychology in general. Even the best movie ever made can flop if its released at the wrong time, at the audience, with the wrong kind of marketing and all these things are determined by factors of cultural influence. "

Thats so true Poe. " Shawshank Redemption " comes to mind.

 

Not to mention THX 1138. Although that one was slaughtered by Warner Bros.
It's only now, with the DVD release of GL's own cut that we get to see how great the film really is.



Star Wars is six, two and one
/LM

 

When I think of serious fiction, Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" as does his "A Clockwork Orange" but both of those were previously books. For me it is hard to remember more serious sci-fi that started out as an original screenplay, like Star Wars did. When I think about original screenplay sci-fi, I think Aliens, I think The Matrix. Both were incredibly flashy and (in my opinion) more about eye candy than serious topics.

For me to think of more SERIOUS sci-fi, I think of more book adaptations (or even short-story adaptations). Sure, AI was flashy, BUT it was serious too in what it spoke of; but it wasn't very GOOD either (especially the fact that for the first two hours it felt very Kubrick, and then the last twenty minutes felt too Spielberg). I am a big Spielberg fan, but adding his stuff to what FELT like Kubrick's movie just felt weird to me. I think Minority Report was (aside from being another Spielberg film) a more serious science fiction movie (adapted from a short story, I think). Sure it was big and flashy, but I think it also tackled some real issues. For instance, if we had the power to know what someone WOULD do, would it give us the right to imprison them, even if they hadn't yet done it? So it was tought provoking. For me, the difference between flashy science fiction and more serious stuff is how much it makes you think and wonder about our own world. I know some may think the Matrix counts as that, and I can see their point, I just disagree.

However, I think that Star Wars was great for cinema and pop culture as a whole. Not all film has to be thought provoking, and that is true of all genres, not just science fiction. Star Wars is deep in that it creates its own literary world (actually getting more specific, its own GALAXY) which is well thought out and makes the viewer think in terms of that. However, Star Wars is more designed for entertainment than for something deep and meaningful. The reason so many fans of Star Wars have been let down by the newer movies is because they wanted something from them that they weren't; they wanted the movies to be DEEP, forgetting that the originals weren't very deep. It was the fans that MADE them deep, and the fact that so much (novels, fanfic, backstory and more) had been tacked on between 1977, 1980, 1983 and when PM came out. People thought of the movies as being deep, when in reality it was the SAGA that had become more deep. That doesn't take away from the original trilogy (which I consider to be BRILLIANT movies, ESPECIALLY ESB) but it means that it shouldn't be mistaken for something it isn't: serious sci-fi. I think that, more than anything else, is what Cameron was talking about.

Sagas like Star Wars and The Matrix are great and entertaining, but people look at them for something deeper than what they are, and that is why they get disappointed. Serious and thought provoking films almost never have the followings of films like Star Wars, and The Matrix, because they aren't as flashy. As great as Star Wars is (and I'm sure Cameron is a fan) perhaps he wonders what might have been had Star Wars never taken off the way it did.

Star Wars changed the world of entertainment, so it is understandable for a film maker such as Cameron to lament of lost opportunity. But then again, Cameron has benefited from the change as well, because the last time I heard, he was a director of this little (FLASHY!) film called Aliens.

By the way, though I am a huge Star Wars fan (Classic trilogy; I don't like the newer movies too much) I admit that taken as a SINGLE film, Titanic WAS more popular and more successful. But of course, that is just in terms of box office gross. One can even (although I wouldn't) call Titanic a better film than any of the Star Wars because it won 11 Academy Awards and NO FILM has ever won more (though Ben-Hur and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King also won 11). But the fact is that Star Wars had MUCH more of an impact on the industry and on the world than Titanic did

 

There has been some serious SF films, but it is hard to make them and unless you're Spielberg...Hollywood doesn't usually trust you.

THX-1138, 2001, and Minority Report are all examples.

-Seldon

 

I think "serious" sci-fi actually aren't usually very popular because the general public doesn't "get it" and don't view these movies as much. Movies like Dune (my favorite), Dark City, etc. have a different type of "thinking", I suppose, where you really have to think about what is going on, use your imagination instead of being impressed by graphics or movie star names. Those are the kind of movies I like, sci-fi wise.

 

" Serious " sci-fi is loaded with political science and social philosophy, which doesnt lend itself very well to mainstream popularity.

 

mimic -
This really is the topic I've been hoping someone would start, ever since I first saw that quote from that no talent hack James Cameron.

and later -

I don't want to bash Cameron as he's made two really great movies (T2 and Aliens

So he's a 'no talent hack' who's made '2 really great movies' ?

. I found the latter-day Matrix films to be pretty satisfying. Some of the sloppiest editing I've seen since "Dark City", but as it goes the series constitutes one of the better film trilogies out there. At least it's more consistent than the adventures of Marty McFly (sorry, but I never bought the whole "Nobody but nobody calls me chicken!" arc).

Yeah, I really like the BTTF movies but that whole "nobody calls me chicken!" thing really struck me as odd.

But I have to disagree about not alot of serious sci-fi before the late seventies. On top of the great movies you listed, theres " Them ", " The Thing from Another World ", " Gojira " ( Godzilla ), " This Island Earth ", " Forbidden Planet ", " Metroplolis ", " 4D Man ", " Day of the Triffids ", and " Invasion of the Bodysnatchers ". Those are just off the top of my head, Im sure theres more.

Village of the Damned, Incredible Shrinking Man, The Fly, Time Machine, Collossus The Forbin Project, Demon Seed, The Man who fell to Earth, Stepford Wives, Westworld, Rollerball, Shivers, Soylent Green, Slaughterhouse Five, THX, Andromeda Strain, Quatermass, Seconds, Day the Earth Caught Fire .


Star Wars is not Sci Fi. It is modern day mythology.

Well it seems to have a lot of labels, we could hardly expect Cameron to use all these names, so I think sci-fi is good enough.

It's only now, with the DVD release of GL's own cut that we get to see how great the film really is.

But this dvd is yet another SE with CGI additions and no sign of the original cut included .

I think what Cameron did (and this in a way was what SW showed could be done) is he realised that you could make a sci-fi/action film and it could have strong well drawn characters and you could mix genres. T1 is a really lean film and yet it has believable characters and a compelling love story woven into it.
In Aliens even the secondary characters are great, the banter between the grunts is wonderful stuff, I've seen other films try and imitate this and fall flat on their face. And the relationship between Ripley and Newt is so well written, directed and acted that by the time we get to the finale it's so amzingly intense because Cameron has gotten us to really care about these characters and their relationships.

And he uses the action scenes not just as exciting visuals but also as an accelerant for the characters' relationships.
It's a technique Lucas used brilliantly in ANH - when the 3 main characters meet on the DS we get a half-hour of wonderful character driven action scenes.
Same sort of thing in Aliens - the characters go into the nest and during the action all the relationships are developed rapidly .

Use your action scenes to develop the characters and relationships. It's a good technique.

But it's a technique Lucas seems to have forgotten. Look at TPM - the 3 main characters, ani, Obi and Padme have so little to do together.

g

 

And he uses the action scenes not just as exciting visuals but also as an accelerant for the characters' relationships.
It's a technique Lucas used brilliantly in ANH - when the 3 main characters meet on the DS we get a half-hour of wonderful character driven action scenes.
Same sort of thing in Aliens - the characters go into the nest and during the action all the relationships are developed rapidly .

Use your action scenes to develop the characters and relationships. It's a good technique.

But it's a technique Lucas seems to have forgotten. Look at TPM - the 3 main characters, ani, Obi and Padme have so little to do together.


Good points. However I must say that a director shouldn't always limit themselves to cliche' or generally used techniques/formulas at all times. After all, some of the best films have been made when filmmakers stray from the traditonal. My point is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and label something as of a lower quality because it was done 'outside the box' so to speak.

 

You're right, unfortunately, the ends (character relationship) wasn't met sufficiently, so "thinking out of the box" didn't work in this case.

 

Good points. However I must say that a director shouldn't always limit themselves to cliche' or generally used techniques/formulas at all times. After all, some of the best films have been made when filmmakers stray from the traditonal. My point is that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and label something as of a lower quality because it was done 'outside the box' so to speak.

absolutely. I was just talking about a certain technique. But these films are designed to have action scenes so why not utilise that for the characters rather than just an action scene ?
For instance : in aotc anakin and padme wander into the droid factory , seperate and go on a video-gamey adventure and there's really no point to it. We know that this scene was added after the initial shoot because Lucas felt he needed more action. Well that could have been an excellent opportunity to put padme in peril and Anakin could save her, which would add some heat to their rather dull relationship.

But if we're talking cliches - well the whole Naboo romance thing is a series of cliches , badly done cliches .

TPM introduces us to the main characters, we should care about them , now if Lucas doesn't want to use action scenes to dvelop the characters then fine, let's have a look at the conversations, the way they inter-react - well they're pretty weak . Point is I don't care about any of the 3 major characters in this movie . anakin has a weird fixation on Padme but I don't feel there's any great friendship there and Obi - well he has no relationship with either of them .
Consequently during the climax I don't care if any of them succeed, live or die .

I really don't feel Lucas has connected with his characters either, he just moves them about , and if he realises he hasn't established something - like the friendship between obi and ani - then adds in a lame bit of "Remember when..." in the elevator scene .

I mean I'm sure he tried with the romance, but the only thing good about it is the scenery .

Edit -
Whereas in Titanic Cameron gives us one of the most touching scenes when Jack draw Rose, it's funny and very human and ends on one of the most beautifully conceived shots ever when we push in on Rose's eye and pull out on old Rose remembering it. If only Lucas had managed something so touching.


g

 

When Cameron made his statements they wernt soley geared toward STAR WARS. He meant all of it. The Matrix, whatever- hes saying its all about flash and hes close to home on that assessment. And I dont think he means HULK and AI necessarily when he speaks of SCI-FI. I think he means TwilightZone X-Files type of science-fiction.

In the end, who cares?

 

"For instance : in aotc anakin and padme wander into the droid factory , seperate and go on a video-gamey adventure and there's really no point to it. We know that this scene was added after the initial shoot because Lucas felt he needed more action. Well that could have been an excellent opportunity to put padme in peril and Anakin could save her, which would add some heat to their rather dull relationship."

It's funny, but I don't necessarily see this scene as being bad. What it shows, more than anything, is that the two characters in AotC are in over their heads in this situation. After all, Anakin is still only a Padawan and Padme is more politican than fighter. Anakin couldn't save her, because he couldn't save himself.

But how does this work in the 'sci-fi' mold? Well, let's take a quick look at what science fiction is. According to "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms", science fiction (as printed word) is "a popular modern branch of prose fiction that explores the probable consequences of some improbable or impossible transformation of the basic conditions of human (or intelligent non human) existence." I don't see any of that in Cameron's latest films (actually, I haven't seen it in any of his films since The Abyss). When he knocks Star Wars, he should remember that he's been making films that are influenced by Star Wars for years.

Someone made the point about the Marines in Alliens all being interesting characters. I'd agree. They have great, somewhat realistic dialogue, and they all seem to exist solidly in their future world. But it isn't any different than Han Solo, or Padme, who both are products of the world created by the films they inhabit.

I should clarify again why I called Cameron a no talent hack. A quick look over at the imdb shows us a list of what he's directed.

Director - filmography
(2000s) (1990s) (1980s) (1970s)

Aliens of the Deep (2005)
Ghosts of the Abyss (2003)
... aka Titanic3D: Ghosts of the Abyss (Australia: IMAX version)
Expedition: Bismarck (2002) (TV)
... aka James Cameron's Expedition: Bismarck (USA: DVD title)
Earthship.TV (2001) (TV)
"Dark Angel" (2000) TV Series (epsiode "Freak Nation")
... aka James Cameron's Dark Angel (USA)


Titanic (1997)
T2 3-D: Battle Across Time (1996)
... aka T2: Terminator 2:3-D
... aka Terminator 2: 3-D
True Lies (1994)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
... aka Exterminator 2, El (USA: Spanish title)
... aka T2 (USA: promotional abbreviation)
... aka T2 - Terminator 2: Judgment Day
... aka T2: Extreme Edition (USA: video box title)
... aka T2: Ultimate Edition (USA: video box title)
... aka Terminator 2 - Le jugement dernier (France)


The Abyss (1989)
Aliens (1986)
The Terminator (1984)
Piranha Part Two: The Spawning (1981)
... aka Piranha II: Flying Killers
... aka Piranha paura (Italy)
... aka The Spawning (USA: short title)


Xenogenesis (1978)

I'd argue that there are two excellent films that he's made, but he's never been a major influence on film. Sure, he's directed the highest grossing film of all time, but it seems to have faded into obscurity
a mere 5 years after its release. T2 was short on story, which is what made the first Terminator a great film. Aliens took someone else's franchise, and totally changed the direction of that franchise. Looking at his director's credits, I'd say that Cameron has been making the types of film that Hollywood likes without much regard for innovation. Sure, his movies might be enjoyable fluff, but they are, by and large, forgettable films that don't have any originality or style.

Plus, he apparently wrote the Rambo: First Blood Part 2 screenplay. If there's ever been a director who has reinforced the direction that Hollywood sci-fi has been moving in, it is Cameron. He should have kept that in mind while he was hauling it his buckets of sellout cash making the blatantly racist and sexist True Lies.

 

>>>>>>>>>>If anything, the lame romance in AOTC was trying to hack the one from 'Titanic.'<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The romance in Titanic is a modern love story. The romance in AOTC is a courtly love story. There is no way in hell it was trying to be like the romance in Titanic. If you went to AOTC expecting a modern love story like Titanic you were going to be severely disappointed. Courtly love is grounded more in over the top dialogue, with the man going crazy, not the woman. --- And it is VINTAGE Darth Vader.

 

You guys do realize that Cameron only praised Star Wars in the article this thread is about.

He is criticizing's Hollywood's vaccuous attempt to repeat Lucas' success, not Star Wars itself.

 

DBrennan: I was wondering for the source of the quote, so we can get a better understanding of the context.

Thanks
Seldon

 

Hollywood well never be able to make a movie like Star Wars or even Lord of the Rings. I don't really count Lord of the Rings as being part of Hollywood like Star Wars it was done out side of the town.

The problem with Hollywood is they see Star Wars and the see Lord of the Ring and they think oh wow let's try to make a movie like they.

Now some movies will make it other won't. But know here is where the problem comes in they try way to hard to make it like those movies.

 

Cameron and Lucas are friends and I doubt Cameron intended to disparage SW itself. After all, it was a chief motivation for him to get his butt in gear and become a filmmaker.

BTW, James Cameron owes a heck of a lot of his career to Harlan Ellison and an iceberg.

I like him though, he's an awesome moviemaker.

 

'Now some movies will make it other won't. But know here is where the problem comes in they try way to hard to make it like those movies. '

I agree. You can feel SW and even LOTR have a vision behind it, which goes beyond a mere clone.