Would a Hollywood ROTS have been better?

I think Hollywood would have made AoTC better.

"Here comes some clones...let's use them!!"

I hope they don't have a secret memeory implant instruction. Oh gosh, they do, Order 66!

 

I don't think mainstream Hollywood is the first place to look to for more logic in your plots.

Ultimately, this is really just another debate about what writer/director could have or should have worked on the prequels instead of GL for those who were dissatisfied with the prequels because "Hollywood" is a pretty vague term.

Do you mean quality Hollywood films like "Million Dollar Baby" or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" or generic crap blockbuster Hollywood like "Doom" or "latest remake of an old TV show"?

Personally, I was happy with the job GL did.

Of course, there are others who would have preferred Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson.

Has anybody discussed Spielberg or Jackson working on Star Wars movies? [internet sarcasm detector short-circuits and explodes here]

 

i think a hollywood made pt wouldve fit the ot better than the lucas version

 

There would of been swearing and Padme would be wearing less clothes.
We would of had a sex scene with blue lights and dodgy music and there would be product placement everywhere.

" Anakin wears Nike"

"When he's not busy oppressing galaxy,Emperor Palpatine drinks Coke!"

 

I agree with you FallenKnight. Without seeing your post earlier, I brought up Batman Begins as an example of a good movie that, while it's funded by a Hollywood studio, it seems it was left largely in the hands of the director.
And it was done by a European director. I've long noticed that movies done by European, Asian and other directors who aren't American, allow their movies to breath, to ebb and flow, to show the passing of time when necessary.
American movies are often just piles of special effects or action-filled crud, seriously dumbed down in order to reach as broad of an audience as possible.
I can't stand obvious movies. I've long noticed that many Star Wars fans want nothing to remain a mystery, they want every single little thing explained in detail as if they're afraid to use their imagination or forge their own opinions.
I mean, I've run into people who want Palpatine to come out and blatantly say, I'm the apprentice of Darth Plagueis, and I killed him. I already read it that way.
I wish people would just use their minds more, fill in gaps on their own and not be so easily swayed by their peers.

 

NO.

 

"If I'd taken the prequel trilogy to a marketing company, Episode I would have started here [with Episode III] - and Episodes II and III would've been about Darth Vader killing people. But in the end, I wouldn't be able to write movies like that."

- George Lucas, The Making of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith


And I'm glad he wouldn't, because that's not Star Wars.



ROTS - it's a masterpiece
/LM

 

It could have been better in some areas if Hollywood had made it. I agree with the thread author that some of the plotpoints were a bit vague. (Well vague for me.. I don't have all the info on SW and I haven't read the books or watched much clonewars). *ducks as people here start throwing rotten vegetables at him*

 

LFL has shown themselves to be no different than the studios they claim to criticize. So tomato-tomato.

 

The only Star Wars film that was made under a Hollywood studio was ANH and Fox was close to pulling the plug on it. He went independent before the work on ESB started and since then, Fox only serves as the distributor. So If you're implying that part of the reason the OT was what it is becuase of being filmed under Hollywood, then you are mistaken.

 

Sure, Hollywood prequels would've had tighter scripts, if only because they would've employed people who get off on writing scripts (as opposed to, say, editing bloated outlines into rough shape long after filming). But would they have thought up the basic story and underlying themes, too? Uh, oh. Fashionable nihilism and semi-Fascist, macho chest-pounding here we come!

Sure, Hollywood prequels would've had more relatable characters, if only because their director would dig working with his A-list stars. But which of the endless supply of swish-cut-swish-cut directors would be stuck with, and how much of modern day super irony-rich, smart-ass, wink-wink dialogue?

Which is to say, as Hudnail put it, to-MATE-o, to-MAHT-o. However, for me, it would be a wash for different reasons.

See my sig.

Who would've made ROTS better? Wrong question.

WHEN would've ROTS been made better? Easy. Back when Lucas AND Hollywood would've been obligated to flesh out their art to the fullest possible dimension.

American Cinema, 1900--1980, RIP.

 

My sentimetns exactly. Except I view it as 1900--1990.

 

** angry crowd throws tomatoes at Tachikoma-kun **

 

I remember reading an article about Peter Jackson during the making of The Two Towers. How he had to send the dailies to the big wigs at New Line and Warner and listen to their input. When they tried to tell him to cut back on the Battle at Helm's Deep he put his foot down. He held fast for awhile but in the end, he realized which end his bread was buttered on and aquiesced. He gave up what he believed in on the whims of a guy in a suit who probably didn't know a damned thing about Tolkien or the story Jackson was trying to present.

For good or bad, and there are admittedly both throughout the Saga, Lucas is the only major director to get away from all that. He doesn't have to listen to suits, he doesn't have to be concerned about focus groups. Regardless of what you say, not even Spielburg has that kind of leeway. Yes, he sometimes misses the mark. But they're his marks and when he does make them he hits true.

 

He doesn't have to listen to suits, he doesn't have to be concerned about focus groups.

LFL is filled with suits and focus groups - and without the checks and balance, as the focus of their focus group is their boss. That's my point. They are as image and marketing focused as any studio around today. See APPRENTICE on Thursday night.

R12, yes, good points. The ideal combo would have been to have Lucas come up with story and main ideas and certain collaborators step in when great concepts like "Jar-Jar for 90% of the film" were on the table.

 

Yes, I recognize this. But the key phrase here was:

He doesn't have to listen to suits, he doesn't have to be concerned about focus groups.

The point of my story was that Jackson had to crumble under studio pressure, where Lucas does not. Sure some bad things get through, but someone was spot on when they said the studios would have wanted dialogue in the Ruminations Scene. And that would have killed one of the most emotionally satisfying scenes in the entire Saga.

I've said this before, but I keep picturing Robocop 2, where a focus group was brought in to tell OCP what the Community would like from their Cyborg Police Officer. The resulting contradictions and PC overload drove him crazy and forced him to fry his own circuits.

A Focus group is a scary thing (IMO). Sure they would have saved us from 90 minutes of Jar Jar, but there sure as heck would have been far more than a single fart and poop joke based on the hits at the time (Ace Ventura, Dumb and Dumber).

 

Ah, Dumb & Dumber, now that takes me back...good times.

 

There was dialogue, or rather monologue, in the Ruminations scene.

It is both a blessing and a curse. In most ways, I'm glad Lucas is the final say - REVENGE is probably better for it. Though I have a feeling that my one standing objection (and one that will never change) to the film would have been cut and would have been an improvement. Arguably, the other two films would probably have benefited more from studio oversight than REVENGE did - as it seems the most studio-like of the three.

And while I love Jackson, I can't say the studio was wrong in having him cut what they did. It might have been the right move - and forced him to include those shots in other ways more economically. Often, artists produce better work when forced to work within constraints. I strongly believe that each of these prequel films would be better if Lucas had been forced to write a more solid script prior to filming - instead of winging it with little more than an outline.

 

Did you know that two of the three people that did the unveiling have worked on plenty of James Bond films? Did you know that Chow Yun Fat also doesn't like guns, but that's never stopped him from being in a movie that has lots of gunfights? The point is, the James Bond thing is really irrelevant and seems to have been thrown out there by Hollywood critics because the guy they picked wasn't high on the fans list.

Someone mentioned that if Hollywood had done ROTS, everything would be explained more than necessary. Well, I personally feel that's exactly what happened in TPM with the explanation of the Force. We had an explanation in ANH and now here was Lucas himself giving us a complete scientific rundown for how the Force works. So it would seem that Hollywood isn't the only ones guilty of that. I know that isn't related to ROTS, but I still think it was unnecessary.

I'm not going to say Hollywood would've done worse since there's plenty of gems that Hollywood releases. It would've been different and yes, possibly better (Anakin's turn is a prime example). Say what you will about how "he had to do it", but I was taking a double take when Palpatine said "Together, we will discover the secret". Excuse me? 3 secs before that he told Anakin he knew, now he's telling him they have to discover it? I would think Anakin would've reacted far differently to that statement.

 

My observation is that Hollywood (speaking very generally) doesn't care a whole lot about continuity. Even in sequels to popular movies rules or characters or little bits and pieces of plot, backstory, etc are changed. Actors are replaced from one movie to the next. Lot of times seems like you get totally different costume directors and make-up artists,etc. so each movie looks very little like the one that preceeded it. If they change their mind on the course of the story, they just change it. Look at the horrible back and forths that plagued the Highlander series...

The Hollywood point is a good one... For all his popularity and money George Lucas is an independent filmmaker. He can do whatever he wants however he wants it, without answering to a rotating crew of executives who think such-and-such-and-so-and-so needs to be changed.

If ROTS had been made by Hollywood, it would have been absolute crap. Who knows what horrible retcons would have been shoved down our throats.

 

All things considered, a lot of times, when a movie is expensive yet unprofitable, the origional producer sells the sequel to his 'blockbuster' to some random low budget director, who makes a sequel for (1/10000)th of the origional cost, expecting it to be a flop, the trick is that if you spend little enough, and it winds up straight to video, you could... with an intentional flop, make far more than an unsuccesful blockbuster..

 

I hope you're not suggesting Star Wars has been immune from that phenomenon . . .

 

RE: Would a Hollywood ROTS have been better?




Spielberg make a GOOD Sci Fi?.......

Jackson do a good film based on an ORIGINAL idea of his?......

 

I'm still amused that people think GL isn't mainstream hollywood, there's nothing wrong that, it's just a little misguided, the man is hardly an indie film maker anymore

 

Lucas is not Hollywood. Hollywood is Lucas. George Lucas invented the Blockbuster. and Hollywood was Quick to take notice. and imitate.