main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

BTS According to Gary Kurtz...

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Darth_Nub, Sep 22, 2012.

  1. Sabre_Of_A_Sinner

    Sabre_Of_A_Sinner Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Dec 30, 2015
    Yes that right! Cheers...yeah simplistically I liked that idea.
     
    darklordoftech likes this.
  2. darklordoftech

    darklordoftech Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Sep 30, 2012
    I wonder if they'll look to the old "origin and formation of the Jedi" concepts as they develop the lore surrounding this first Jedi Temple.
     
  3. Sabre_Of_A_Sinner

    Sabre_Of_A_Sinner Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Dec 30, 2015
    I wonder what Gary Kurtz thought of The Force Awakens?
     
    Lt. Hija likes this.
  4. Sabre_Of_A_Sinner

    Sabre_Of_A_Sinner Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Dec 30, 2015
    This reference on Episode IX stating "First appearance of The Emperor." bought an interesting theory in my mind.

    This may not be true but the fact that we first saw the emperor in holographic form in Empire Strikes Back perhaps suggests that he was meant to remain that exact way for the rest of the series until he Fully reveals himself in Episode IX? Adds more suspense to the character anyway.
     
  5. oierem

    oierem Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2009
    There's only a certain amount of suspense you can sustain before it gets boring. Having FOUR episodes with the Emperor as a hologram before revealing himself would be too much.
    Anyway, if you're making a trilogy (and by the time Empire was being made, it was meant to be a trilogy), you need to get to the climax in the third act. Clearly, by the many references to the Emperor in Empire, he was meant to appear in Jedi all along (ever since the Original Series became the Original Trilogy)
     
    darklordoftech likes this.
  6. Sabre_Of_A_Sinner

    Sabre_Of_A_Sinner Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Dec 30, 2015

    Of course it's true by that point they were going to reveal the Emperor in Return Of The Jedi before Gary Kurtz left, I think the fact was that the Emperor's throne room in Jedi originally wasn't meant to take place on the Death Star. If they were to reveal the emperor in this obsolete version of "Episode IX" anyhow, of course I don't mean they were going to show him in nearly every other film possible; just maybe one or two...
     
    ATMachine likes this.
  7. darklordoftech

    darklordoftech Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Agreed. Going from ESB's Emperor hologram and father reveal to Luke having an adventure that doesn't change or reveal anything about Vader or the Emperor would make ESB a giant bait-and-switch.
     
    oierem likes this.
  8. oierem

    oierem Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2009
    And that's probably how and why Star Wars changed from a "saturday matinee-serial" type of adventure series to a overarching Saga.
     
  9. darklordoftech

    darklordoftech Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Kurtz was likely thinking of a time before ESB was written where in each episode a Grand Moff would be taken down, with the fall of Vader and Sheev occuring after the all the Moffs are gone.
     
  10. Lt. Hija

    Lt. Hija Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Not necessarily prior to ROJ and back in those days. How many 007 movies did it take before the mysterious SPECTRE guy with his cat actually met James Bond in You Only Live Twice?
     
  11. ATMachine

    ATMachine Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 27, 2007
    The fall of who?

    I admit there's a slim chance the Emperor's first name c. 1978 was already Sheev, what with that name being a Michael Moorcock reference and all. But still. :p
     
  12. darklordoftech

    darklordoftech Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Sep 30, 2012
    But it's more fun to say "Sheev" than it is to say "Palpatine," "Sidious," or "Emperor."
     
    Random Comments and ATMachine like this.
  13. ATMachine

    ATMachine Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 27, 2007
    OK, that's an excuse I can accept. ;) I just had to point it out, lest "Sheev Palpatine" get added to the mental furniture of any remaining members of the "George Lucas thought it all up in 1977" crowd.
     
  14. Pancellor Chalpatine

    Pancellor Chalpatine Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2015
    I don't trust Gary, he seams bitterly biased. The whole thing about "George making movies for toys and not story" line for example......yeah that's a load of crap.

    Nobody who knows star wars at all thinks George is money hungry. The man sold star wars for a mear 4 billion when he could have gotten a LOT more. Heck Pixar, a company that branched from his lucasarts was sold for almost TWICE as much. And George even gave all the money he got from Disney that wasn't stock to charity. Billions were GIVEN AWAY by the man. And he still donates millions here and there!

    Once you go around and say a BIG lie about somebody who fired you, your further insults on the man hold no worth. Heck I don't believe a word what he says about star wars personally.

    Hatred over being fired made him lie about George and his work before, why should anything he said be thought of as true?
     
    darklordoftech likes this.
  15. Lt. Hija

    Lt. Hija Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Pancellor Chalpatine wrote

    Hatred over being fired made him lie about George and his work before, why should anything he said be thought of as true?

    I had the privilege of hosting a 2002 convention's podium and "bound" Gary Kurtz for almost 2 hours to it.

    I really don't understand where all this aversion against Gary Kurtz is coming from. He stroke me as a perfect gentleman and never ever said anything that could be remotely considered as slander, bad mouthing or whatever at the expense of George Lucas.
    Some convention guests tried to provoke this with some questions but Mr. Kurtz never fell for it.

    Of course he was asked what he thought of AotC, and his personal opinion was that there had been too much emphasis on new vehicles and characters (that could be made into toys) and not enough emphasis on story and character development.

    Never for even a second did anybody get the feeling that Mr. Kurtz was "bitterly biased". On the contrary, he seemed like a very relaxed person that had put all of what happened in the late 1970's behind.
     
    ironwaffle, MauiMisfit and ATMachine like this.
  16. Pancellor Chalpatine

    Pancellor Chalpatine Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2015
    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/12/entertainment/la-et-gary-kurtz-20100812


    ""I could see where things were headed. The toy business began to drive the empire. It's a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It's natural to make decisions that protect the toy business but that's not the best thing for making quality films.

    That line for example is malarkey.

    Selling toys was what George was trying to do?! I'm so sick of people saying that. George's goals have always been about telling the story he wanted, not about the money. Go watch how Star Wars episode lV was made. George literally went out of his way to keep the rights of the film to make sure the story is told no matter how much money he'd lose.
     
  17. Lt. Hija

    Lt. Hija Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 8, 2015
    Pancellor Chalpatine

    In case you have it, I recommend revisiting the official George Lucas biography Skywalking where I recently had to look something up and it's highlighted that Lucas made additional money with the toys that were propagated by the films which isn't represented as a bad thing.

    Fact is that Gary Kurtz unlike us knew about the original drafts for Revenge of the Jedi and if it's true that the amount of creatures we saw in ROJ was not a priority in the early drafts it seems he's not entirely wrong. Merchandise was definitely a strong consideration when making the actual film.

    Here is a little anecdote I need to share, according to Dean Devlin: When Lucas saw the VFX effects in Independence Day he talked to Devlin and said: "You should have had ILM do the VFX, we would have been cheaper" (assuming that the VFX were very expensive which they weren't).

    I was a bit disappointed. Lucas didn't say that ILM would have done "better" VFX, only "cheaper" ones.

    And, no offense, I'm not entirely sure whether Lucas really made the PT to tell a story or rather showcase the state of the art of CGI. That was something fascinating, re-reading Skywalking (from 1983). One of his friends already said, then: If it were possible for George to shoot a film without actors he'd be the first director to make such a film.
     
    ATMachine likes this.
  18. ATMachine

    ATMachine Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 27, 2007
    There's one story from the making of ROTJ that certainly appears damning in this respect -- when Dermot Crowley was fitted for his costume as General Madine, he was told that he had to wear a false beard. He didn't want to at first, but he was told in no uncertain terms that he must wear the fake beard on set. Later, Crowley found out that this was because Kenner had already designed Madine's action figure, and the head sculpt chosen had a beard, so the actor needed to match.
     
  19. Pancellor Chalpatine

    Pancellor Chalpatine Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2015
    Lucas is very humble, he wouldn't be condescending to other's work and say "We'd do it better" he was offering them to do it cheaper to help, obviously it'd be better. It's ILM.

    Lucas was trying to tell a film, he was also trying to advance how CGI was at the time, and he did. What's wrong with multi tasking? He did do both.

    None of the films were made for toys. People still say bb8 is for toys, he isn't though.

    Yeah Lucas changes his scripts a lot, because he wants a good movie. The best he can make! He's right next to people in audio commentary saying it and has no problem having the fact known he changes drafts a lot. It's called being bale to change you mind.

    Look at the OG star wars story and look at what we have now. Better isn't it? Because Lucas knows he's no god who can just make something at it's best from the get go. If you ever wrote something, you'd see it's a process. Go write a book, explore your creative mind and see how much you'll go back to chapter 2 or whatever before you present your story, because you want to set something up with foreshadowing, or something to connect with new ideas. You can either say "eh I made this already. I don't wanna rewrite." Or do the extra work to change your mind to make an upgrade.


    I mean why do people think George cares about selling toys? For money? He's already rich and famous from the movies and what not, and the first film was made without toys in mind. (Cough IOU star wars toy Christmas 1977 cough )

    If he sacrifices story for toy sales, then he's being greedy....and the man who donates millions regularly and even gave all the billions he could to charity from selling star wars (for much less then he could have) is FAR from a money hungry man. George only cares about the story. Toys are left to the toy makers. He doesn't care for the fame or the money. he's not perfect, but he deserves more credit then he gets, and all the hate and crap on him is ridiculous.
     
  20. darth-sinister

    darth-sinister Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2001

    Four. "Dr. No" is where Bond first hears about the organization. SPECTRE. "From Russia With Love" has Blofield in it, but they don't cross paths. "Goldfinger" didn't connect to SPECTRE, while "Thunderball" did. The next film was "You Only Live Twice".
     
    ATMachine likes this.
  21. MauiMisfit

    MauiMisfit Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Dec 29, 2015
    The level of Lucas-idolatry is strong with this one. :D

    Kidding, but seriously... I don't think anyone can definitively state what motivated Lucas either direction since none of us were there. Kurtz's opinion, regardless of what you believe motivates him, is probably more relevant than anything any of us believe. He worked with and knows the man.

    There is enough evidence to what Kurtz was saying that it isn't completely out of the realm of possibilities despite everything else.

    The PT went a long way - in a lot of people's minds - in solidifying this fact.
     
    ironwaffle and Darth__Lobot like this.
  22. Sabre_Of_A_Sinner

    Sabre_Of_A_Sinner Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Dec 30, 2015
    Neither was there meant to be a second Death Star, right?
     
  23. oierem

    oierem Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2009
    I have nothing against Gary Kurtz (basically, his quotes are used as a weapon against Lucas or againts himself, depending on the party).

    But you are wrong on this one. Gary Kurtz knew nothing about the "original drafts" for Revenge of the Jedi. The first attempts at creating a story treatment (let alone a draft) happened after Empire was released. Gary Kurtz left Lucasfilm much earlier (his official resignation is dated December 1979!).

    And about the importance of the merchandising, that happened much earlier than Return of the Jedi. Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie, the droids, the Falcon, Vader... were much more heavily sold than any other toys. And it's wrong to think "aliens = toys". Was the original Cantina scene (in which Lucas wanted more and more aliens) designed as a merchandising plot?
     
    darklordoftech likes this.
  24. MauiMisfit

    MauiMisfit Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Dec 29, 2015
    It isn't fair to say anything about Lucas' motivations towards script/story versus merchandising prior to RotJ since that has never really been a point of contention.

    In fact, Kurtz specifically stated that Lucas moved from one paradigm to the other over the course of the series -- as he found it so lucrative.

    I am sure Kurtz would agree that in the beginning, the droids and aliens were to compliment the story. They were used as story aids to drive the narrative or set the theme. Whereas as the movies progressed, sets and themes were being designed around toy sales.

    Whether or not this is true is a matter of debate, but I think it's a red herring to bring up ANH and ESB - as the merchandising arm of Lucas was still nascent.
     
    ironwaffle likes this.
  25. darth-sinister

    darth-sinister Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Here's what Lucas has said about merchandising, during the time of the OT.

    Paul Scanlon: The film's success should guarantee some success in the merchandising program you've launched.

    George Lucas: One of my motivating factors for doing the film, along with all the other ones, was that I love toys and games. And so I figured, gee, I could start a kind of a store that sold comic art, and sold 78 records, or old rock 'n' roll records that I like, and antique toys and a lot of things that I am really into; stuff that you can't buy in regular stores. I also like to create games and things, so that was part of the movie, to be able to generate toys and things. Also, I figured the merchandising along with the sequels would give me enough income over a period of time so that I could retire from professional filmmaking and go into making my own kind of movies, my own sort of abstract, weird, experimental stuff. So now you want to sell toys and games, and make esoteric films? Yes. The film is a success and I think the sequels will be a success. I want to be able to have a store where I can sell all the great things that I want. I'm also a diabetic and can't eat sugar and I want to have a little store that sells good hamburgers and sugarless ice cream because all the people who can't eat sugar deserve it. You need the time just to be able to retire and do those things, and you need to have an income...

    --Rolling Stone interview, 1977.

    Jean Valley: Did you know then that the merchandising and sequel rights were going to be so valuable?

    George Lucas: Well, when I was writing I had had visions of R2-D2 mugs and little windup robots, but I thought that would be the end of it. I went for the merchandising because it was one of the few things left we hadn't discussed. I took everything that hadn't been discussed. All I knew was that I wanted to control the sequel rights because I wanted to make the other two movies.

    --Rolling Stone interview, 1980.

    Paul Scanlon: In terms of special effects, do you and your team feel you have to top yourselves with each successive film?

    George Lucas: I'm thinking of the sheer number of spacecraft in the final battle, not to mention all the new creatures. We weren't really trying to top ourselves. I was sort of concerned that there wasn't really very much new in this one. It was like the same old space battle, the same old crowd battle, more monsters, more in the cantina scene. But again, the original film was designed with all that stuff in it, and we couldn't afford to do it. When you look at the space battle in the first one, the ships move very slowly, there's not more than two or three ships in a shot, and there's no continuity between shots – the ships don't fly out of one shot and into another. We hadn't done it before; nobody had ever done it before. So it was faked, all done editorially with a lot of quick cuts and a lot of crosscutting to give you an impression that there was this very complicated battle going on when it wasn't. It was the same with the cantina creatures. Those are just rubber masks stuck over heads, and that was about as far as we could get. We said, let's do as much as we can, given the resources we have available. On Empire, I said, instead of making twenty-five rubber masks, we'll do one really good, articulate monster the way it should be done – which was Yoda.

    Scanlon: Which bring us to the Ewoks. Where do they come from?

    Lucas: The idea was just a short Wookiee. In the original film, the giant end battle was the crux of the whole movie: a sort of primitive society overcoming this huge technological society. In the early versions of the script, those primitives were Wookies. Since I couldn't do that battle, I took one Wookiee, and he ended up being Chewbacca, who became a more technological person. So in this one I said, ''I can't make them Wookiees, so I'll make them short Wookiees and give them short hair and give them a different society and make them really primitive, the way it's intended.''

    Scanlon: There's one major difference, though. They're lovable small creatures, and you haven't done that before. Jawas are small, but they aren't lovable.

    Lucas: Well, they evolved and started getting cute. Dare to be cute. The worst we could do is get criticized for it.

    Scanlon: I think you may.

    Lucas: I'm sure we will. A lot of people are going to be offended by Ewoks. A lot of people say the films are just an excuse for merchandising: ''Lucas just decided to cash in on the teddy bear.'' Well, it's not a great thing to cash in on, because there are lots of teddy bears marketed, so you don't have anything that's unique. If I were designing something original as a market item, I could probably do a lot better.

    Scanlon: But you are marketing Ewoks anyway.

    Lucas: Oh, yeah, we market everything in the movie. That's what keeps funding the other things we do – the computer research and all the other things. Again, people tend to look at merchandising as an evil thing. But ultimately, a lot of fun things come out of it, and at the same time, it pays for the overhead of the company and everybody's salary.

    --Rolling Stone interview, 1983.