New Esquire magazine article:"Spielberg vs. Lucas"

The latest issue of Esquire has an article on the current situation over INDY IV. The title on the cover is kind of sensationalist because it doesn't have any factual evidence of a real rift or conflict between Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. The article just states what we already know: that production of a fourth Indiana Jones movie has stalled because George didn't like the script by Frank Darabont, even though Spielberg and Harrison Ford were enthusiastic about it.

 

George knows best!
If you remember Spielberg did not care for the story of Temple of Doom, and I like that and so does GL.

-Seldon

 

Temple of Doom was the best.

 

This thread is proof that all computers should be equipped with breathalyzers to verify users are not high on illegal substances. Temple of Doom better then the best motion picture ever made: Raiders of The Lost Ark?

All kidding aside... Mr. Lucas shouldn't be juggling Jones4 and Episode III at the same time.

 

So were you drunk or high when you posted that?

 

I think Raiders is great, but personally Temple of Doom is my favorite. It was the first Indy movie I ever saw and it'll always be high on my list.

 

Raiders is my favorite
but i love all three Indy films.

Steven has issues with Temple of Doom, I'm not sure why...maybe because it is different than he expected when he signed up for the project.

-Seldon

 

Temple of Doom was ballsy and different. Last Crusade, while being a heck of a lot of fun, was essentially just a rehash of Raiders.

Point, Lucas.






Mace Windy,
too windy for spoilers!

 

So were you drunk or high when you posted that?

I was high on the love from a good woman and loaded from a bottle of Johnny Walker Red Label? but I had abstained from the Scotch when I first wrote that post.

In my opinion? Raiders of The Lost Ark was and still is the best motion picture ever made for many reasons. It illustrated you can still be a winner when you lose, you can be eccentric and still tough? you can be brainy and sexy at the same time? all qualities I strive for. 

That?s quite an accomplishment for a movie that was supposed to be a tribute to movies made in that era.

 

If they ever manage to finally make Indy IV, I wonder if it'll have the same amount of success as the previous ones.

 

I wonder if it'll have the same amount of success as the previous ones.

Could it be compared to the event that was Episode I?

It will be the first Indy movie in over 15 years.

 

1 - Raiders is way, way better than Temple of Doom. Waaaay better.

2 - Spielberg knows better than Lucas, always.

3- Lucas just doesn't want to compete with a Spielberg film next year, so he is stalling.

 

The Indy films are made from the teamwork of Lucas and Spielberg. So you can't just say Indy is a Spielberg project because it is also a Lucas project. They work for the best of their films, sometimes they argue but in the end they make a great film together. After all Steven did not want Young Indy or a holy grail, Lucas did not really want a Indy Senior. They both put their ideas together and had a great film because of it.

Even if Lucas did not stall, Indy 4 would not come out in 2005.

-Seldon

 

J-Sol0, an Indy would be considered a "Lucas" film, not just a Spielberg film.

 

2 - Spielberg knows better than Lucas, always.

Hmm...okay.

Spielberg himself said that the ending of Raiders that Lucas came up with works much better than the original one. But I really shouldn't have to bring up examples to reply to that remark at all.

 

it all depends on Point of view.
I think they both work great together.
I think they work great by themselves too.

-Seldon

 

I mean, come on, Spielberg is a real filmaker. Lucas is...something else. Lucas is more of an "idea guy" than a filmaker. And does anybody here believes that Lucas is a better director than Spielberg? Spielberg is the real deal. Just have a look at his career. From his first feature, Duel, to Catch me if you can, we're looking at a real artist here, a guy who really loves cinema. Spielberg is the guy behind Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, ET, The Colour Purple, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, A.I., Minority Report and on, and on, and on. He had his flukes, like 1941, Always and Hook, but hey, at least he was directing. And I'm certain he had a HUGE influence in the way Indy came about. To me, Indiana Jones is Spielberg, not Lucas. Lucas' Indiana is that boring kid and that impossible teenager from the Young Indiana Jones series.

Lucas is a visionary, ok, but at another level. I think he really doesn't care much for movies or cinema. He cares about the future, about doing things different (meaning: HIS way), about pushing the limits. But he doesn't think twice about messing with his own (few) films, toying with them just to test new technologies and special effects. He doesn't like directing and is bad at it. But he developed a new way of doing films now that really don't need a director. Everything can be "fixed" in post production, so he just shoots a lot of footage and throws the ball to the FX guys.

 

Except that Lucas is the one that came witht the original concept of Indiana Jones, not Spielberg and he was more instrumental on the sotry of Raiders than Spielberg.

And saying that Lucas doesn't care about movies is naive at best. What do you think being at the forefront of improving the experience, THX Sound, Skywalker Sound, ILM, digital cinema, etc. was all about. What about producing and giving a helping hand to Tucker, Mishima, Body Heat or 2 Kurosawa filsm was about. Or his constant support of the USC Film School program. He might not care in the specific way you care of but that's just too narrow a vision. So anyone that doesn't direct is not much worth or care about the movies?

 

What?s the deal with people who think there is some kind of compitition between George Lucas and Steven Spielberg? I think this is some kind of Super-Shaddow style nonsense to give fans something to yap about while waiting for the OT-DVD?s to come in the mail.

Secretly, I wish Uncle George let Lawrance Kasdan rewrite ALL of his scripts. But that?s just me.

 

J-Solo, if you were in a horrible car crash when you were 18 where you almost died and it made you realize how little time you have on Earth, you'd think a lot about the future too!

 

George and Steven are really good friends.

 

Lucas is a visionary, ok, but at another level. I think he really doesn't care much for movies or cinema. He cares about the future, about doing things different (meaning: HIS way), about pushing the limits. But he doesn't think twice about messing with his own (few) films, toying with them just to test new technologies and special effects.

Yes, partly to test new F/X, but also because he wants the films to be closer to the way he originally visioned them, but back then he didn't have the technology available to do it! Another reason why he ads new F/X is to bring the Original Trilogy more closer in look to the prequels in order to appeal more to a new and younger audience that has not the same feelings for the Original SW trilogy!
And so he doesn't care much for movies or cinema?
-He started the THX company in order to make cinema better, he financed very expensive Kurosawa films just in order for Kurosawa to have full influence on his movies, no pushy producers!!
Come on man! GEORGE LUCAS LOVES MOVIES!!! Clearly you don't!!

He doesn't like directing and is bad at it. But he developed a new way of doing films now that really don't need a director. Everything can be "fixed" in post production, so he just shoots a lot of footage and throws the ball to the FX guys.

Opposed to what you say Lucas is well known to think effectively and like an editor, he's known to edit the shots in his mind while shooting and therefore having few takes of scenes. So he's known to shoot very little footage, just what he needs to fullfill his vision. (Other directors, like e.g. Peter Jackson are known for shooting a lot of footage and "making the movie in the editor's room" instead). Lucas is also very much involved in the F/X postproduction work! So clearly you don't know what you're talking about at all!!!!
Oh! So he's bad at directing is he? He's directed five movies (not counting epi3) and been nominated for Oscar, Golden Globe and BAFTA for best director for two of them!!!! That doesn't sound like a bad director to me!!!
I don't know how much you know about directing (nothing it seems), but if you've studied the directing in movies like American Grafitti or Star Wars you'll see a true genious of a director in action!!!!

Maybe you ought to do a little more research, before you go boasting out about how bad George Lucas is!!!

 

I'm glad you could get that out of your chest. Feeling better?

 

Lucas doesn't just toss he footage to ILM and let them add the effects. He pulls up a chair and directs them aswell.

 

I'm glad you could get that out of your chest. Feeling better?

LOL!
Ah,well,yes...Sorry if I seemed a little angry, J-Solo, but I just have to defend my favorite director (especially when you went like he's "not even a real filmmaker")...
I'm quite used to Lucas bashing, but I think you're way to hard on him, anyway, I guess we've got totally different opinions on this matter...


btw
You claim Steven Spielberg to be so extremely passionate about movies and all that, well then let me ask you why he clearly prefers quantity over quality (he makes too many movies),and all he really cares for is making money and having a big name; STEVEN SPIELBERG has become synonumous with cheap Hollywood crap (at least in Europe he has...)
Lets consider two of his recent productions; A.I - Artificial Intelligence and Minority Report.
They are both movies with great potential to be something more than "popcorn"... Instead of using this potential Spielberg turns them into "polished", commercial and totally unimportant films!!!
The truth is; he doesn't dare to take chances, the doesn't dare to make important films any longer... He's frightened to death by the thought of making a film the audience don't like or that gets bad reviews...thus he makes compromizes a real filmmaker should not do (George Lucas don't)...
And the result is; Steven Spielberg is unimportant, and if it hadn't been for his past successes he would just have been one of the many filmmakers in Hollywood today...