Why the bad reviews???? Nostalgia...

i love Barry Lyndon btw... im reminded of it every time i see your sig, so i cant really ever get mad at you hahaha.

good points Bresson.

 

'Barry Lyndon' rocks in so many ways.

 

Then it goes back to someone who has the right personality to make it realistically possible. Creative friction is fine but it shouldn't be screaming and shouting at each other after every take either so the whole experience is miserable for everyone.

As far as creative input from the OT pool goes, based on what I've read in this thread, Kurtz shouldn't be the go to guy. If anything, it should be Kershner.

EDIT: Now I see that Bresson has already responded.

 

There was a quote from Khreshner saying during the filming of Empire, he was asked back for Jedi, but sort of off handedly turned it down. He regretted it becauese he thought he could have done some nifty things with it...

The only thing for certian is that this series couldn't be done without georgie

 

Bresson, I agree with your points. We may disagree a bit on the importance of Kurtz, but I respect your opinions because (1)We both defended Citizen Kane in another thread full of people claiming CK was the most over-rated film of all time, and (2)Barry Lyndon was a rockin film. That movie had a big impact on me.

I guess what makes me side with Kurtz so often is from what I've heard he did behind the scenes. Although ESB may have likely been a difficult project, I'm not sure if it was all doom-and-gloom from beginning to end. As I understand it, things really started falling apart near the end, with the budget and schedule becoming a wreck. But prior to that, I think ESB was probably an enjoyable experience for all involved, even if it was a bit rocky. (I did read "Skywalking" a few years ago, but I'm sketchy on all the details.)

From what I have read from other sites (which I'll try to find again), I know Kurtz did second-unit direction on ESB. Maybe it was to help Kershner out, or maybe it was to capture a simple shot that didn't require hauling a 60-year old Kershner around so often. I've also heard that Kershner and Kurtz had a close dialogue with each other during ESB, and two good examples of the care they put into the film was the "Han being put into carbonite" scene, and another smaller scene, where Lando invites Leia for some refreshments.

The carbonite scene was meant to be one of the central moments of the film, and arguably, the trilogy. Kershner and Kurtz disucssed and fretted over this scene. They wanted to do this right, and they understood that a moment like this was what would make Star Wars trancend other sci-fi serials. Audiences would be impressed with the level of emotion in a film series with Flash Gordon/serial origins. And that's what I loved reading, seeing them fret over details like this. As a viewer, I appreciated that they took great efforts for this one scene -- and it was worth it. That scene, with the lighting, sets, smoke, and music, and not to mention Harrison and Leia's performances -- mostly through glances -- it all comes together wonderfully. I suspect this scene was filmed many times, as this is where the infamous "I know" line was born. (Harrison probably re-shot that scene so many times)

The other scene I was talking about was when Lando meets Han and Leia and invites them for refreshments in that bright room in Bespin. The scene was a simple one, but the performances were not really believable. Lucas reportedly wanted to move on, as he seemed to think it was satisfactory. (Sounds familiar). . Not to pick on GL too much, I guess he was afraid of the looming deadlines and the special effects and the millions of other decisions he had to worry about, so I can't totally blame his hastiness there. However, Kershner wanted to re-do the scene to squeeze out more convincing performances, and Kurtz sided with Kershner here, and finally, after much hesitation, Lucas allowed it to be done. "You truly belong with us here among the clouds..." Kershner seemed to pay great attention to acting here (he seemed more excited about the characters than the effects, and I think it shows). He also made Mark Hammill bump his head 16 times (literally) in the Dagobah scene in Yoda's hovel. Apparently the first 15 didn't seem convincing enough. Now that's directing. (Maybe that's why the film spiralled out of budget -- look at all the re-shoots, takes, and last second add-ons to ESB.) One hand, bankruptcy is definitely not a good thing. But on the other hand, most of these pains and sacrifices seemed almost worth it.

Btw, I got some of this info from blueharvest.net's trivia section.

 

In contrast, a sign on a door at Lucasfilm read:

"This film comes out in May 1999, no matter what.

- Rick McCallum"




(Personally, I hate those dippy "morale-boosting" print-outs that people wallpaper office doors and hallways with)

 

It's tempting to think that ESB would have been a distaster if Lucas had written and directed it on his own, but somehow I doubt it. The two story elements that pack the biggest punch (Han frozen in carbonite and Vader's familial revelation) were both devised by Lucas. I think Lucas's ESB would have been very similar to Kershner's . . . just "faster, more intense"

 

there is a big difference between devising an idea, and having the ability to execute it effectively.

 

No argument on that one, although GL seemed to do okay for ANH.

 

Well, unless Lucas goes back in time and directs ESB himself we'll never know the answer will we? I'm sure he has the technology

 

But if Lucas travelled back in time and directed ESB himself, history would be altered and we wouldn't have Irvine Krisna's version to compare. Think about the paradox you dummy!

 

But if Lucas travelled back in time and directed ESB himself, history would be altered and we wouldn't have Irvine Krisna's version to compare. Think about the paradox you dummy!

Duckman doesn't know it yet, but he's just discovered the plot of Episode III!!!!

 

Thanks for the info, Breeson...JohnWilliams

 

there is a big difference between devising an idea, and having the ability to execute it effectively.

My thoughts exactly

I believe in giving Lucas credit where credit is due. Star Wars is ultimately his baby because he conceived it and he the gumption to push it through when few believed in it. But like all babies Star Wars had a lot of doctors and baby sitters and teachers along the way to help with its development...maybe even a wetnurse or two as well

All I can say is that we all know how relatively easy it is to conceive a baby...it's what comes after that is the difficult part

 

It ain't easy to give birth to a baby though!

 

Why the bad reviews? Too much cyanide in the popcorn is my guess.

 

It ain't easy to give birth to a baby though!

I didn't say it was easy to give birth...I said it was easy to conceive.

In Lucas' case I think he must've at least had a cesarian.

 

Again, isnt it at least POSSIBLE that the bad reviews are reflective of a BAD MOVIE?

Usually, the simplest explanation is the correct one.

Or if its just too painful to contemplate that scenario, you could consider the possibility that the reviews (and much of the public) honestly didnt think much of AOTC.

 

The simplest explanation is that critics are biased.
Seriously, how come they attack Lucas and call him a hack, yet praise utter mediocrity at the same time? I realised something was rotten back in 99 when Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me got better reviews than TPM.

 

At least Austin Powers was stupid AND intermitently funny. TPM had Jar Jar for comic relief. Not good.

 

The simplest explanation is that critics are biased

You really thinks so, DarthHomer? You really think bias can explain everything?

I'd agree with you that it's strange that the critics would give better reviews of "Austin Powers" than they would of TPM. I think it might have a lot to do with Jar Jar, Jake Lloyd, and what many of them perceived to be racial stereotypes in TPM.

Personally, I don't think a comedy can be compared to a film like Star Wars. It's kind of like apples and oranges. Comedies are in a league of their own and the critics, I'm sure, have a different set of criteria for reviewing them.

A better movie to compare IMO would be a movie that's in a similar genre such as 'Minority Report' or 'The Matrix'.

 

why the heck are people talking about racial stereotrypes? George Lucas is not rascist people. I swear you people think you know Star Wars movies more than GL does. I dont care what you guys say, you dont period. And i bet you he knows more than you think. You guys think Lucas is just a hack, i swear, you guys are really against him. It's alright if you dont like the movie but talking about racial stereotypes, give me a break. Get a life

 

JediHPDrummer immediately begins balling and runs into his George Lucas shrine room to purge his soul of any nasty thoughts against Star Wars this thread may have brought upon...

BTW, I do believe that many fans put more thought into the little immaculate details of Star Wars than GL. Also, I agree that the racial stereotyping charge was and still is dumb as some people still bring it up, however, nobody was actually accusing GL of it. Someone just brought it up, chill man.

 

There's been a lot of acidic stuff out there directed at GL, moreso than any other Hollywood personality that I can think of at the moment, hence the suspicion about the motives of certain critics.

The cries of racism on TPM and from that Detroit paper on AOTC seemed to be PC out of control and/or simple attempts to generate controversy to sell newspapers and magazines, IMHO. The Detroit article was definitely in the latter category. They obviously didn't do their research at all and just assumed what Temeura Morrison's origins were based on his appearance (isn't that a feature of racism?), revealing their own ignorance and greatly diminishing their credibility.

EDIT: Star Wars is almost in a genre of its own. Comparisons to Minority Report or The Matrix can only go so far because you get back to the concept of apples and oranges. I think that pinning SW down into a specific category like "science fiction" is part of the reason why a lot of critics may not "get" SW.

 

"The simplest explanation is that critics are biased.
Seriously, how come they attack Lucas and call him a hack, yet praise utter mediocrity at the same time? I realised something was rotten back in 99 when Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me got better reviews than TPM."



TWO DIFFERENT MOVIES! one's a comedy and the other's space adventure!!!! one makes fun of itself and the other try's not to(even though it does at times. jar jar)