Would a Hollywood ROTS have been better?

...and at this point, the difference is?

 

Not sure what you mean . I was stating that Lucas does not Copy Hollywood. at all. he does not look to them for anything but distribution. and he is exactly a Indy Filmaker. He Funds it on his own. Sounds pretty Indy to me. The Guy answers to Nobody in a Suit, or Money men., he see's his Vision to comlpetion and does it by his own means. he is outside the Hollywood System. Lucas is his own Studio. he does'nt need them for anything. he's Independant. he's Indy.

 

yes, he's as independant as the president/chairman of every other large hollywood studio, the difference is?

 

Well for starters, i don't know you , so i certainly don't have to keep answering you . but the difference is that he Did'nt get hired for the position. he created the position for himself. and the difference is as i stated the buck stops with him . not the shareholders. is there anything else you need explained?.

 

for one thing, why do you assume Lucusarts, Lucusfilm, ILM, etc... don't have shareholders? Just because they have his name in them, doesn't mean he simply whills them to create a movie, and it's there... Lucus is hollywood and vise versa, nothing all that unusual about it

 

Who cares anyway. Lucasfilm is not Lucasarts and SW in General is not influenced by it's shareholders then. is that a better wording?. Yeah lucas uses HIS money from all his sources. but SW is not medled with by the Money men at all. that's why the Guy left the Hollywood system. anyway , i don't know why you wish to make such a big deal out my one little post. and i don't really care.

 

i dont think a hollywood film is the answer, but a different director is, imo. its no coincidence that almost everyone's favorite film (ESB) wasnt directed by Lucas.

even if its not your favorite film, the quality and depth of ESB is unmatched, imo.

i just dont think Lucas, or anyone for that matter, can be a brilliant director while being so immersed in the visual process to the extent he is.

lucas is a master or storytelling and more of a master of bringing to life an alien environment in such a familiar way. the advantage of another director is that he is detached from the process and can focus soley on his job of character interaction, unique relationships and development

the job is too big for one man, even st. george

 

WRONG

Lucas is the world's most successful Independent filmmaker. Now.

He makes the films HE WANTS the WAY HE WANTS with HIS MONEY, WHEN HE WANTS. You don't get much more Indie than that.

 

Holly wood rarely has anything fresh or inventive. It relys on cliche and formula writing to make their lackluster flicks. Most of the decent films that come out are from independent or foreign film makers. People who have either made enough money to make a movie on their own terms or made their film in a different studio system.

The recent creation of big hollywood studio indie partner film distributors is due to audience support of independent films because of their quality and the sheer number of awards these films win. Miramax is a perfect example. Now we have Fine Line Studios, a division of New Line Studios; Paramount Classics, a division of Paramount Studios; Fox Searchlight Pictures, a division of 20th Century Fox Studios; etc.

Hollywood follows the footsteps of Independent FIlm Pioneers like George Lucas; not the other way around. So how can anyone ask the question if a "Hollywood" ROTS would have been better. At the very best, they would have done it the same. But more than likely it would have been a big budget blah fest.

Aliens VS Predator comes to mind when i think of Hollywood. You're more likely to find a quality film on a label such as Focus Features or Miramax. Now that's not to say that all Hollywood films are bad; but the fact is the big money gets in the way of unique or daring films, because instead of treating the 'art' as expression, they treat it as dollar signs. Because of that, they go for what's safe, what's worked before, and the popular stars.

These ingredients are why Lucas had such a horrible time trying to make his very first Star Wars film. Check out the documentary on the classic trilogy box set. Hollywood almost ruined Star Wars. LOL they wanted a disco soundtrack for crying out loud.

 

No. Hollywood is horrible.

 

what exactly is a hollywood film?
there are elements of hollywood in rots...

that bein said, i thibk the film benefitted from someone not firmly planted on hollywood ground.

 

Nothing IMO could of made it any worse.

I think I understand what your saying about the plot and pacing being fubar in ROTS...maybe?

I think a "hollywood" ROTS would of been more structured and less...seat of the pants. Which could of only served to make for a more engaging and over all better story.

I thought the pacing was good throughout TPM and AoTC but RoTS after seeing it, elements that needed to happen on screen to eliminate as many questions as possible seemed just thrown in without any thought. IMO Lucas backed himself into a corner, ran out of time and just put some slop together to tie up loose ends.

Regardless of who the movie belongs to, the story telling just plain stunk in the PT. Good story, bad telling.

It's hard to give a definitive answer as to whether a Hollywood RoTS could of been better without seeing Hollywood try it, but with where TPM and AoTC left the characters as far as progression and development, RoTS needed to be about 2 hours longer for it to be any good.

Following TPM and AoTC hollywood probably couldn't do any better with the strict 2:45 time frame.

Starting from scratch with three movies to make, absolutely.

 

Not all Hollywood movies are bad, some can be really good if given a good script and good director, but if something is described as "pure Hollywood," then that usually isn't a good thing.

 

Hollywood tends to spell things out a bit much for my tastes. I'm quite happy having a set of circumstances put in front of me in which I'm required to reach a few conclusions for myself. I think this is done well in ROTS. It's OK for people to have different takes on exactly how things have unfolded. There doesn't always have to an THE answer.

 

I don't really see much of a difference between Hollywood and Lucasfilm anymore, where Lucas went off and created his own little Hollywood to himself. The practices are the same, except now the suit is flannel.

 

It seems to me this discussion ignores the fact that Star Wars may be independent
of Hollywood, but it is collaborative film making. George is an idea man and he
relies and delegates thd broad concepts of his vision down to experts to
grind out the finer details that end up on screen.
GL may have his hand in all the pies, ultimately, but he is not the one
doing all of the cooking. I, for one, think it works out pretty well.
It's not just one man's movie, it's an entire film making empire
machined around making Star Wars movies.

When you say "Hollywood," I guess I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
The Hollywood GL turned is back on 20 years ago isn't the same today, largely
because of the manner in which GL has revolutionized film making.

He has become what he was reviling, the head of a corporate film making monolith.
The difference is, GL thinks like a story teller and a film maker, rather than
an executive out for profit alone. Not to mention that he is very good at it.

Are there other film makers that could have done SW justice from GL's notes/input?
More than likely. But it wouldn't have been a GL SW film. Better? Nope.
Just different. It would lack GL's indelible touches.

 

George Lucas himself understands the irony of his huge success and becoming the head of major companies. I think he mentions this in the Empire of Dreams documentary or an interview somewhere.

Another example of someone breaking away and becoming independent and hugely successful is Todd McFarlane who is the head of his own little multimedia empire that produces highly-detailed action figures, animation, comics, etc.

These are just examples, and there are certainly many more, of people who just want to be their own boss and cut the strings so to speak.

Independent is a rather odd term because even independent filmmakers usually have to find somebody to fund their film and distribute it.

People often associate Kevin Smith with being "indy" but in The Collected Writings of Kevin Smith, he admits that this is inaccurate because he really stopped being indy after Clerks which he funded out of his own pocket and even Clerks needed to find a distributor.

After that, it was Miramax footing the bills. Although I'm sure that Kevin has a fair amount of clout and say in what he wants to do, you still have to listen to the people who are writing the checks.

I guess when people say "indy" they are generally referring to smaller films that operate outside usual Hollywood convention with regard to the creative process but "indy" doesn't necessarily mean "better" either.

 

Nah.