PT What do you think the PT would be like if there was no break between making trilogies?

Lucas was surrounded by just as many and probably more yes men like Kershner and Kasdan when making the OT who encouraged his terrible dialogue and ideas.

 

Another interesting thought: Dagobah may have been the Jedi's main location, or a planet like it.

 

I like the more cosmopolitan portrayal of the Jedi in the PT.

It's yet another case, for me, of being relieved Lucas didn't simply opt for "The OT 2.0".

 

For that, we have The Force Awakens and Rogue One.

 

BAN THIS MAN!!! BAN HIM, BAN HIM, BAN HIM!





Yes.

 

It would not be anywhere close to Lucas' true vision for the prequels. Whether that's for better or worse, your opinion

 

Indeed. If Lucas had really listened to the naysayers, as certain...people claim he did back then, SW would never have been made at all. People thought the very idea of SW was crazy, stupid, and silly, and the only reason 20th Century Fox would even touch it is because Alan Ladd "Laddie" Jr. had such faith in the project and campaigned for it. He'd done that previously for "The Omen," which, by the way, can also be partly credited for the existence of SW. It was an unexpected hit, and the money it made for the studio, which had been strapped for cash, funded several more projects, including SW.

I bet the execs at the studios that rejected SW spent the next decade or so kicking themselves after it came out and was an unprecedented monster hit.

Certain...people have made much out of an argument Lucas had with Irvin Kershner during the filming of ESB, where Lucas shouted, "You've ruined my movie!", as "proof" that they hated each other's guts and Kersh made this great movie behind Lucas's back. They fail, or refuse, to apply a little thing called "context." Lucas had a lot...no, make that everything...riding on ESB, which was by no means a surefire hit. It was darker and less "fun" than ANH, and audiences are notoriously fickle. He was trying to get Lucasfilm off the ground, the shoot was running very badly over-budget due to many factors, the banks were refusing to lend Lucas any more money, and there was the very real threat of the whole thing being shut down.

Lucas was forced to go to 20th Century Fox, almost literally on his hands and knees, and beg for enough money to finish the shoot. This, understandably, upset him. He then took over the producer duties himself and pared down the budget as much as possible. (See below for the story on one of the FX casualties.) He was under massive stress, and something he saw in Kersh's edit of ESB set him off. I don't know what, or why, but I am comfortably certain that Lucas is something called a human being -- you know, capable of getting angry and maybe unfairly taking out said anger on another person once in a while. I doubt there are many people out there who can honestly say they've never done likewise.

Anyhow, Kersh took the outburst in stride, then gently suggested (these are Kersh's own words) that his edit of ESB was the better one. Lucas, once he'd calmed down, saw that it was and agreed.

I might add that Kersh himself said that one time he'd been worried about the cost of some effect or other, and voiced his worries to Lucas via telephone (they reportedly talked to each other almost every day that Lucas wasn't on the set), and Lucas said, "Let me worry about the budget. You just keep doing what you're doing." Doesn't sound like they had an adversarial, mutual-hatred-laden relationship to me.

When Lucas was releasing the SEs, he personally invited Kersh to supervise the editing. Kersh said he didn't think the changes were necessary, but he didn't object to them, although there was one change he was delighted with: the opened-up interiors to Cloud City, which he'd wanted for the original release but Lucas nixed to save money.

So no, I don't think Lucas is an arrogant, unmerciful tyrant who WILL NOT listen to the suggestions of others. Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. It's the same with every director out there. And it was always like that. I also fail to see why certain...people rely so heavily on the opinions of ex-employees of Lucasfilm, who never set foot on any of the prequels' movie sets. How can said ex-employees possibly know whether Lucas was surrounded by yes-men during the filming of the prequels?

 

Apart from Gary Kurtz, is there even any source that Lucas ever said that?

I don't doubt that some version of this conflict happened, but Gary Kurtz's specific recollections on how these sorts of things went down should definitely be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Kersh also related the anecdote about Lucas's outburst, although he did so in a much more diplomatic way. Kurtz had an agenda: to build himself up as some sort of elder statesman of SW and Lucas's babysitter who forced him to care about quality (quotes and anecdotes from the time he was SW's producer contradict that claim, to put it mildly). Kersh didn't care for the prequels, but neither did he set out on a mission to defame them and everything Lucas has done since 1980 the way Kurtz did.

 

That's interesting. I wonder what elements of ESB Lucas took issue with?

I get the feeling his joking (when receiving an award) describing ESB in his opinion as "the worst film" might have held some truth with regards to Lucas's opinion.
It is so different from the Lucas-centric films in the series. I'm a fan of Lucas's impressive grand vision for the PT, particularly TPM and ROTS, but ESB's strength is so much based in the characters' eccentricities. In terms of characterisation and humour I think they struck gold.

 

My interpretation is that it was a very inside-movie, very inside directing thing that we really can't appreciate.

Not unlike when Lucas looked at a cut of TPM and said they went too far. It's about the edit. Timing down to frames here or there or flow or rough cuts to smooth.

Lucas and Kershner's basic approach to set-up's and editing was different. People like to make it about something in the story or characters which doesn't work because it's Lucas' story and characters. So that isn't the issue. The issue is the actual flow of the movie which Lucas thought was "slower" than it should be.

Look at ANH and the way it cuts around the actors while TESB is more about lingering around the actors. The difference can literally be a beat or two.

 

Actually, I don't think it's that different from the Lucas-centric films. One could make the case that some of the actors turn in better performances, and some of the dialogue is better, mostly due to Harrison Ford's ad-libs. Some say that Luke is incredibly whiny in ANH and grows out of it in ESB. Huh? He whines twice as much in ESB as he does in ANH, especially once he meets up with Yoda. ESB is my favorite film in the series, and I think it's the best film too ("favorite" and "best" are not synonymous, though they're often treated as such), but not by that wide a margin. IMO people tend to put ESB on a much higher pedestal than it warrants, and certain...people do so at least partly as a way to slam Lucas, saying he had nothing to do with it (untrue) and that's why it's good. I know because they've said so.

I don't know what elements of ESB Lucas took issue with, but again, once he'd calmed down, he saw that Kersh's edit was in fact better.

 

Good thoughts guys.

I think Luke is whiny in ESB too, but it has never been a major problem for me in ANH anyway. It's part of his character, he is destined for bigger things but must be patient. His character progression over the OT is so well done.

I also agree that the margin of quality is less than the detractors claim. I'm kind of in the minority in many of my views, while ESB being my favourite follows a mass-accepted norm, less popularly I would probably rank TPM just after that.
It's quite a diverse set of movies for all it's links and progressive narrative flow, really. I would think much of the drama and symbolism present heavily in Empire Strikes back can be drawn back to Lucas's vision.

 

Interesting. Where does Kershner relate this story? Like I said, I know there were some disagreements about editing, but I'm just wondering how acrimonious they really were. But as you point out, obviously, in the end, they worked everything out with no hard feelings.

And I can't for the life of me remember where I read this, but I recall somewhere reading a quote from (I think) Paul Hirsch who described the final cut as being something halfway between Kershner's cut and Lucas's original cut. In other words, Kershner's cut was a bit too slow, but it's just that Lucas's initial effort to fix it overcompensated. Maybe it was on one of the DVD commentaries.

I really don't think Lucas dislikes TESB at all. He's actually said several times that it's a better film than ANH, and only once so far as I know has he said that it's bad, when he was joking in what was clearly meant to be a self-deprecating way (he considers it his movie as much as anyone else's). He was just riffing on the widely-held consensus that it's the best. As many of us know, Lucas's sense of humor is what we young 'uns would term "a bit trollish."

 

I don't even know if "better" is the correct term as such.

Kershner explains the difference between himself and Lucas on the Empire commentary.

Basically Lucas is a documentary film-maker who gathers the elements and then creates the movie in the cutting while Kershner in in effect does his "cutting" on the shoot itself by the way he shoots it. He pieces it together in his mind and does that at the time of the shoot. That is why he takes so long to do the movie because he is shooting and cutting at the same time so to speak.

The upshot is that his movies and the way they fit together is already in place. When Lucas tried to edit it to his way it didn't work as well. Kershner's edit was better for his film. This of course applies to what he actually shot with the actors as opposed to things like the battle of Hoth or asteroid chase or escaping Cloud City etc.

The obvious thing is that Lucas liked to use master shots for coverage and then move in. Kershner seemed to favor shooting "further in" and didn't get master shots as much. If he liked something and it fit then he was finished.

Lucas gives himself plenty of options when shooting while Kershner limits the options so that he can get it done his way. So if someone wants to change it then they will have a hard time because the coverage isn't there.

Yes. One has to be careful with what Lucas says and when he says it. He was certainly riffing there.

 

I think he related it in a Salon.com interview, but it was a while ago and I can't be sure.

Well, the edit/cut in question wasn't the final cut, it was a rough cut. I don't doubt that after many more edits and cuts, that there was more of a balance struck.

I don't think Lucas dislikes TESB either. He's given no indication that he does, but people will see quotes from him and attribute any motives they want to them. One of the most bizarre "theories," if it can be dignified with such a term, that I've seen goes thusly: Lucas hates ESB so much and is so resentful that "everyone" likes it best when he didn't direct it (actually, he did direct some pickup scenes) or write it (actually, he did work with Kasdan quite closely on the script), that he deliberately went about destroying SW's legacy with the SEs and the "horrible" prequels.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen. It not only makes huge assumptions (that everyone likes ESB the best, which is far from the case, and that everyone hates the SEs and thinks the prequels are horrible, which is also far from the case), but puts forward the absurd idea that Lucas is so spiteful and so inclined to self-destruction that he would spend hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money, not to mention over 10 years of his life, to "ruin" SW's legacy. If he truly wanted to do that, there are quicker, easier, and certainly cheaper ways to go about it.

 

http://www.salon.com/1999/05/13/kershner/

At one point, Lucas made a pass through the editing and inadvertently
diminished the power of the movie — he tried to hurtle it along. Kershner
helped him realize that for the second movement of the “Star Wars” symphony,
you needed time to study the actors and look into their eyes. Kershner still
feels that portions of “Empire” go by too quickly. But he says “Lucas’
filmmaking instincts are remarkable,” and Kershner is thrilled with the
recent digital embellishments to his movie (including a vista Kershner had
urged on Lucas 19 years ago for the Cloud City).

 

If Lucas had made the prequels earlier they probably would have been a lot more like people expected and preferred (in particular no Qui-Gon and instead a lot of closeness between Obi-Wan and Anakin, Anakin starting training just a bit younger than or the same age as Luke).

To me it feels like, despite the presence of Yoda, it has the least focus on the Jedi, the Force and the theme of destiny, it feels more than the other films more like a typical Sci-Fi action film focused on the Rebels vs. the Empire (although Jedi feels more that way except for the Luke/Vader/Emperor scenes but they seems like a bigger focus there). Even Luke's training feels like it's focused on getting him ready for combat although also noting the downsides of bring too much about combat.

 

As part of Empire seeming to focus more on the Rebel-Empire conflict aspect rather than the Force, Han comes off as a more serious character than in ANH or especially Jedi and the comic relief in general feels present and at times strong but generally pretty subdued. Lucas might prefer that the Jedi story is serious and the other story elements relatively light.

 

Ah, OK. Thanks for providing the quote.

 

I don't see why these would be the case. Even the way it actually happened, Lucas's early drafts of TPM did include Obi-Wan in the role as the one who initially finds, trains, and shares a fatherly bond with Anakin. As the drafts evolved, though, he seems to have realized that putting Obi-Wan in that role conflicted with his desire to depict Obi-Wan as a flawed young man who grows as a character over the course of the trilogy. And I suspect that his desire to depict Anakin as a younger child with mother issues had come about at least as early as 1983:

http://www.theforce.net/episode2/story/the_bad_mother_74846.asp

Nothing concrete, of course, but he was clearly already thinking in terms of making the newer trilogy revolve around mothers, which as we know is one of the main reasons he decided to make Anakin so young in the first installment. Lucas had of course become a father with young children not too long ago at this point, which I think may also have influenced his thoughts.

 

There's an interview with Mark Hamill around Empire where he says Lucas asked him if he would come back to "hand Excalibur" to the next generation of Jedi and Hamill asked Lucas when it would happen and he said like 2020 haha so I think Lucas always had the plan to go back and do the prequels first then continue with the sequel trilogy after it.

 

Less focus on effects and action sequences and aliens and things like that, obviously more rubber masks and real sets and matte painting backgrounds, more closed environments like Hoth and more open shots being in "real" locations like Hoth and Endor, and, I'm guessing, more attention would be paid to acting, dialogue and story. If Episode 1 started production around, say, the time Aliens or Predator came out, Lucas probably wouldn't direct, which would have probably been a good thing. Different director, less "Yes Men" standing around him, things like that. It's an interesting idea.

 

Was this post scientifically engineered in a lab to include every single prequel-bashing cliché?

 

When did Kershner ever express that he didn't care for the prequels?