What could have been (according to Gary Kurtz)

Hey everybody. I never ever write in here, but I read all the time and love the discussions. Forgive me if this isnt the appropriate forum to discuss this in, but I recently came across an interview with Gary Kurtz, the producer from "New Hope" and "Empire," and he got very very insightful about the original plan for the Star Wars saga. This is from theforce.net:

# EPISODE 1: Was to focus on the origins of the Jedi Knights and how they are initiated and trained
# EPISODE 2: Introduction and development of Obi-Wan Kenobi
# EPISODE 3: Introduction and life of Vader
# EPISODE 4: There were seven different drafts of the film. At one point, they pursued buying the rights to Hidden Fortress because of the strong similarities. At one point, Luke was a female, Han was Luke's brother, Luke's father was the one in prison (interesting point for some debates) and the film featured 40 wookies
# EPISODE 5: Once written, the screenplay of Empire is almost exactly what is seen on screen. The only cut scenes were those involving wampas in the rebel base (cut because of time and unsolved technical glitches) and about two minutes of Luke/Yoda Jedi training with no real dialog.
# EPISODE 6: Leia was to be elected "Queen of her people" leaving her isolated. Han was to die. Luke confronted Vader and went on with his life alone. Leia was not to be Luke's sister.
# EPISODE 7: Third trilogy was to focus on Luke's life as a Jedi, with very few details planned out.
# EPISODE 8: Luke's sister (not Leia) appears from another part of the galaxy.
# EPISODE 9: First appearance of the Emperor.

This all intrigues me, especially the rough plot for Episode One! Im curious to hear what other people think of this. The interview is very lengthy, but here is the link...

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/376/376873p1.html

He really gets into the original Star Wars ideas on page 4, but there is some other stuff earlier about how he feels Lucas changed after the first Indiana Jones movie. Actually, he does kinda bash Lucas in this interview, which makes it interesting and worth reading in itself. But I should mention that I do not post this to encourage any bashing on the new movies v. the old. Im just interested to hear what others say. Please share your thoughts, and keep this thread going!!! You all rule.

 

Arghhh, Im going to keep this thread alive!!!

On Lucas:

IGNFF: From your personal experience, how would you compare the George you worked with on American Graffiti to the George you worked with towards the end of The Empire Strikes Back?

KURTZ: It was quite different, actually. He was very different. I think the most unfortunate thing that happened was the fact that Indiana Jones came along, and Raiders of the Lost Ark had come out in between. George and I had many, many discussions about that, but it boiled down to the fact that he became convinced that all the audience was interested in was the roller-coaster ride, and so the story and the script didn't matter anymore.

Now Raiders is not a bad film, but the script actually was much better than the finished film. There were a lot more nuances in the character, and there was less action. It would've been a better picture if that script had been made. But, as it is, it's an interesting and entertaining film ? it's just that this idea that somehow the energy doesn't have to be put into getting really good story elements together. One of the arguments that I had with George about Empire was the fact that he felt in the end, he said, we could have made just as much money if the film hadn't been quite so good, and you hadn't spent so much time. And I said, "But it was worth it!"

On the original saga:

IGNFF: Well what were the original outlines for the prequels? Since they can be compared and contrasted now that the first one's out there, and the second one's soon to be out there. Were there major differences from what you saw, from the original outlines of prequel ideas?

KURTZ: Well a lot of the prequel ideas were very, very vague. It's really difficult to say. I can't remember much about that at all, except dealing with the Clone Wars and the formation of the Jedi Knights in the first place ? that was supposed to be one of the keys of Episode I, was going to be how the Jedi Knights came to be. But all of those notes were abandoned completely. One of the reasons Jedi came out the way it did was because the story outline of how Jedi was going to be seemed to get tossed out, and one of the reasons I was really unhappy was the fact that all of the carefully constructed story structure of characters and things that we did in Empire was going to carry over into Jedi. The resolution of that film was going to be quite bittersweet, with Han Solo being killed, and the princess having to take over as queen of what remained of her people, leaving everybody else. In effect, Luke was left on his own. None of that happened, of course.

IGNFF: So it would have been less of a fairy-tale ending?

KURTZ: Much, much less. It would have been quite sad, and poignant and upbeat at the same time, because they would have won a battle. But the idea of another attack on another Death Star wasn't there at all ... it was a rehash of Star Wars, with better visual effects. And there were no Ewoks ... it was just entirely different. It was much more adult and straightforward, the story. This idea that the roller-coaster ride was all the audience was interested in, and the story doesn't have to be very adult or interesting, seemed to come up because of what happened with Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Indiana Jones films ? and the fact that that seemed to make a lot of money and it didn't matter whether there was a really good story or not ? that wasn't what this kind of film was about. We had serious differences about a lot of that.

 

It's interesting to hear his opinions on Raiders, considering how universally loved it is. It's as if he thinks the picture would've been better if only he'd been involved. It's obvious he and Lucas had different opinions on the tone of the films (from Raiders onwards).

George Lucas knows a thing or two about making an entertaining movie and I trust his vision over Kurtz's. I personally think Lucas is doing a better job with the prequels than he would have with those early ideas Kurtz mentions.

# EPISODE 1: Was to focus on the origins of the Jedi Knights and how they are initiated and trained

This would have been interesting. We get some of this in TPM. I think it would lose some mass appeal if it went too deeply into Jedi-lore. Plus, it'd be a little too disconnected from subsequent Episodes if Anakin is to be the central character of the saga. (Although I have a vague memory of Kurtz wanting Obi-Wan to be the central character of the prequels with Luke being the protagonist of the OT and sequel trilogy. Kurtz opposed Vader being Luke's father. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

# EPISODE 2: Introduction and development of Obi-Wan Kenobi
# EPISODE 3: Introduction and life of Vader

These are vague, but these concepts have been incorporated into Eps I & II.

# EPISODE 4: There were seven different drafts of the film. At one point, they pursued buying the rights to Hidden Fortress because of the strong similarities. At one point, Luke was a female, Han was Luke's brother, Luke's father was the one in prison (interesting point for some debates) and the film featured 40 wookies

I've been meaning to see The Hidden Fortress for a while now. It's funny reading about those early ideas.

# EPISODE 5: Once written, the screenplay of Empire is almost exactly what is seen on screen. The only cut scenes were those involving wampas in the rebel base (cut because of time and unsolved technical glitches) and about two minutes of Luke/Yoda Jedi training with no real dialog.

Those'd be some cool dvd possibilities.

# EPISODE 6: Leia was to be elected "Queen of her people" leaving her isolated. Han was to die. Luke confronted Vader and went on with his life alone. Leia was not to be Luke's sister.

This is pretty interesting. It'd be a real downer, that's for sure. Many kids may have drifted away from the series. I think if it had been done this way, it would have made the sequel trilogy necessary, which would have been great, but I'm happy with the way ROTJ ended.

# EPISODE 7: Third trilogy was to focus on Luke's life as a Jedi, with very few details planned out.
# EPISODE 8: Luke's sister (not Leia) appears from another part of the galaxy.
# EPISODE 9: First appearance of the Emperor.

Much of this seems to have become the basis for ROTJ. Once again, this is a vague outline for 3 movies but I think it may have been a little too dark for younger audiences. Who knows? SW owes much of its current popularity to the connection its made with young audiences over the years.

All in all, I think the final saga isn't too different from those original ideas. It's maybe a little lighter, tighter and shorter than Kurtz would've liked, but I'm happy with what Lucas has created.

 

Well, I, for one, am very glad things didn't go the way Kurtz planned. Sure, we wouldn't have had the annoying Ewok scenes, but we also wouldn't have had the final confrontation between Vader, Luke, and Palpatine, which is, in my opinion, the best scene in the entire series. We also would've had a sequel trilogy that, judging by the rough synopsis given, would have been very long and drawn out, and a prequel trilogy that would've been utterly disconnected to the rest of the movies.

 

One of the arguments that I had with George about Empire was the fact that he felt in the end, he said, we could have made just as much money if the film hadn't been quite so good, and you hadn't spent so much time. And I said, "But it was worth it!"

Now, Kurtz is just getting high and mighty. I doubt Lucas said any of that. I sincerely doubt it.

 

Kurtz is an arragont S.O.B. Since his career went in the crapper after Lucas fired him, his only claim to fame is badmouthing Lucas. This guy is pathetic.

 

Agreed.

 

Interesting ideas, definitely, but I love the actual movie version of the SW Saga better. On the other hand, I may have liked it if there were a movie that was devoted entirely to the development of Obi-Wan's character. However, as much as I love Obi-Wan, I don't think that would fit in the Saga because SW is about (all about Obi-Wan Kenobi) the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker.

Aunecah

 

I think this interview is required reading to anyone who likes movies and it's interested in how they were made in the past and how they're made now.

Kurtz shows a deep knowledge on the matter and everybody should at least open their mind and have a look at this.

I think Lucas (and his films) would benefit a lot if he still had somebody with another POV hanging around.

 

Kurtz wasn't fired. They both decided to go their separate ways. We've been through this, and there's nothing anyone's shown to indicate otherwise.

Strange that George's two best-directed films were both produced by Kurtz. Strange that the best Star Wars films were both produced by Kurtz. Strange that after Kurtz leaves, we get ROTJ, which is generally considered a step down from the past two installments.

Strange that Kurtz still talks on the phone with George, still gives lectures with him, and yet he's bitter and hates him. Stranger still, he says that ROTJ would've been a better movie if George had directed it himself. Very unbecoming of a George basher, wouldn't you say?

*strokes chin*

Very strange indeed.

 

I think Lucas (and his films) would benefit a lot if he still had somebody with another POV hanging around.

He doesn't make these films in a vacuum, people.

In my opinion, when people bring up the "Kurtz Factor" and claim that Lucas needs a "different POV", what they really mean is:

"I wish we had someone in there who sees Star Wars the same way we do."

It's funny. I'm glad that the (so called) fans have nothing to do with these films.

-Otis

 

Well, even though Lucas is my favorite filmmaker, I will have to admit that there are certain spots in the saga where I am glad he didnt get his way. Supposedly Anakin's confession to Padme about the Tusken slaughter was supposed to be far different in the script, supposedly it was less emotional or something. Thank God Christensen challlenged him on that. Also, him and Williams wanted the entire asteroid chase to have music, but Ben Burtt challenged them on that. This supports Otis Frampton's point that George is not working in a vaccuum here. Supposedly, I heard somewhere (correct me if Im wrong) that the movies where originally mainly about the droids or something. Thank god he didnt get his way on that. Also, 3p0 was originally supposed to have some Newyorker type accent or something. Thank god Anthony Daniels challenged him on that.

But 90% of the time, it seems as though Lucas and I are the same person when it comes to ideas about movies. I heard he was against Indiana Jones just taking his gun out and shooting the swordsman in Raiders. He wanted a swordfight. I agree with him. I dont understand what is so great about him just taking his gun out. Ohhhhh, yeah , woooptiy do, he just took his gun out and shot him. Hahahha, how funny is that!

Its an interesting thing how for the most part that the compromises are working out for me. I wouldnt have enjoyed for the asteroid chase to have all music, but I also would not have enjoyed it to be all sound the entire time.

 

Well, it's easier for the people that dislike the way the SW Saga has gone since ESB to paint Lucas as some kind of iron-fisted God of Olympus figure, crushing all that defy him underfoot.

Now, James Cameron on the other hand...

 

Hey everyone. This discussion has been awesome and Ive enjoyed everyone's responses. One opinion Kurtz had in the interview that Ive been thinking about a lot lately was what he said about the multilayers and subtexts in 4 and 5. Heres the quote, to keep you informed:

"There's a lot of undercurrent in Star Wars that, if you take it on the surface, a four-year-old can really enjoy it ? but there's a lot else going on, under there. In that sense it's multi-layered, and Empire is as well. That's the thing that bothered me a bit about Jedi and certainly about Episode I, is that those layers, those subtexts ? they're all gone. They're not there. You accept what's there on the screen ? it either works for you as a surface adventure, or it doesn't. But that's all there is. There's nothing to ponder....The sign of a good movie is one that can work on very, very many levels and, depending on your mood when you go to see it, you can see those, or not, as you want. But it doesn't interfere with your entertainment of it."

I would have to agree that the new ones are definately very monotoned as far as story goes. This doesnt mean I dont think theyre not complicated though. Ever since I saw Episode 2, Ive been dwelling on many mysteries, like who is Syfo-Dias, and who screamed "Nooo!" after Qui-Gon's voice. It could be argued that there are some interesting comments on american politics through the new movies as well. But as far as the emotional and humane complexities of the old movies compared to the new, I would have to totally agree with Kurtz.

I didnt really get as much out of the prequals as I did the old ones. And I dont think the response answer that its because Im older works, because my parents loved the originals much more that the new ones as well. Could it be the special effects introduced in '77 were much more shocking then the ones in '99 with TPM? I dont think so, because there have been tons of movies with very nice efects that were torn apaqrt by the public. Just look at movies like The Matrix, Jurassic Park 3, and others of the ilk*. They will be easily forgotten over time, unlike the original Star Wars Trilogy. Why? Caues the stories really hit home! Sorry this is so long winded and I may be rambling, but I just wanted to make sure I got my point across.

*Using these movies as examples are sure to get me flamed, I know. Im sorry but these are the only ones I can think of right now.

 

Oh, and Durwood...I wouldnt say Kurtz has been arrogant at all. He just seems to be following his heart to me, something I have to highly admire. To walk away from the financial bohemeth(sp?) of the Star Wars Empire had to be hard as hell for him to do. But after challenging Lucas to be a better creator all along, and to see him prefer the poppy action than the mythology, or story, of the films, it must have been heartbreaking. Think about it.

 

My basic problem with people's arguments "Gary Kurtz should produce the new movies" stems from the fact that I don't think people understand what producers do.

The producer's job is to make sure that everything is ready for the director to do his job, so that the movie comes in ON TIME and ON BUDGET.

If there is fundraising to be done, he makes sure funds get raised. He makes sure that locations are secured, that the crew and equipment get there.

Then he promotes the flick and says it's wonderful. I mean, come on. Look at Jerry Bruckheimer all excited about the movies he produces. And Joel Silver's bloated form saying that the Matrix movies are worth watching.

If you wish Gary Kurtz had helped on the prequels, then say you wish Lucas had shown him the script as a friend, the way he did with Darabont (who loved the TPM script btw).

It's worth noting that the two SW movies Kurtz produced (ANH and ESB) went over budget and over time. Lucas had to go back to Fox and beg for money to get them finished. (In ESB's case, he also had to beg from private banks.)

McCallum, on the other hand, got the production moving again after a sandstorm destroyed the set.

If I were a director (and maybe I will be one day, if all goes well), I'd want a producer like McCallum in my corner. He knows what to do to get a movie made.


Rick McCallum loves you! (That's not neccesarily the producer's job, but...)

 

Well said, Adam.

 

The viewer cares about what ends up on the screen when all is said and done, not what it took to get there. If Kurtz's involvment with the prequels would've made them better films, then that should be all that matters to us.

 

Durwood: Stop bashing Kurtz for the sake of bashing and post something on-topic or don't post at all.

Everyone go back and read the opening post and address it.
This thread has too much potential to become another "bash Lurtz and McCallum".

 

If I were a director (and maybe I will be one day, if all goes well), I'd want a producer like McCallum in my corner. He knows what to do to get a movie made.
--------------------------------------------
I would probably want a "yes man" producing as well, if I thought my ideas were perfect and untouchable, hehehe. Im sorry, but McCallum comes off to me as a mooch.

Just Kidding.

But seriously, wouldn't you rather have somebody there to really challenge your ideas for the benefit of making the film stronger?

 

But seriously, wouldn't you rather have somebody there to really challenge your ideas for the benefit of making the film stronger?

Yes. Absolutely. But he shouldn't neccesarily be the producer.

The producer is not neccesarily a 'creative' position. (Although some producers like to think it is. As always, money talks, and money in Hollywood comes from producers. Jerry Bruckheimer could videotape himself doing a jigsaw puzzle and get it into theaters.)

As I said above, perhaps Lucas could have had Kurtz help on ROTJ / prequels as a consultant, or just a friend ("Hey Gary, here's the script for TPM, what do you think?")

I think a lot of pro-Kurtz, anti-McCallum stuff is failure to understand what the producer's job is. Saying that McCallum is overly concerned with getting things done quickly and cheaply is like saying that a cinematographer is overly concerned with making good images for the film.


Rick McCallum loves you! (What a hell of a thread to post THAT in.)

 

Well, even though I disagree with most of Kurtz's ideas, I will say that he does not appear very arrogant. He seems to respect the opinion of people like me who love the prequels. In that interview with Chris Gore, I was mad at Chris Gore, not Kurtz. Gore really tried to bait Kurtz into saying something really insulting about the prequels and the people behind them. For the most part, Kurtz did a good job of not taking the bait. The only time I thought he took the bait was when Gore addressed the suppposed racism. Other than that, I thought Kurtz behaved himself pretty well.

But to add to Adam's point about the budget thing, going overbudget would have been even more of a disaster for the prequels, since Lucas is financing it by himself. Studios could afford that sort of thing but Lucas has to be tighter with the budget because he just doesnt have the money that studios have.

The thing that did bother me about Kurtz's response to going over budget is "we were going to make it all back anyway." Any of you who are in the film business can correct me if Im wrong, but to me that seems a tad irresponsible considering the box office disaster of MORE AMERICAN GRAFFITE which was released just a year before EMPIRE.

 

*trying to veer this thread back onto topic*

do you guys think the original idea for episode one would have been a good thing or a bad thing? initially i say a good because oh how i would loooove to see sith\jedi warfare all over the place. but then i think about what the prequels are (in my opinion) doing, which is destroying the fantasy of what happened with Luke's father, The Clone Wars, etc.

discuss amongst yourselves my children...

 

The summary given there is pretty hard to make a judgment from. That sounds more like a documentary than a narrative film! People already accuse the prequels of wasting time and not covering enough neccesary ground.

I realize that that's all we have to go on, but... I have to say that 'the history of the Jedi' would work better as a book or maybe a TV special (?) than a film. It doesn't teach us anything about the OT characters.


Rick McCallum loves you!

 

"sounds more like a documentary than a narrative film."

Hmmmmm, Lucas comes from a documentary film making background. I would have no beef with an original approach to a Star Wars film Or even possibly a Discovery Channel Series