Rather than update the franchise to match current styles, Lucas and Spielberg decided to stay true to the prior films’ look, tone, and pace.
Bluebottle wrote:He's trying so hard to keep it consistent in terms of the look and the feel, he knows that the script has to match up. I don't think Spielberg would do it if he didn't like the script - alll three of the players had to agree on it.
Zarles wrote:The biggest detractors to geek movies are the people that call themselves their biggest fans. It's one of the few aspects of geekdom that truly pisses me off. You're not a kid anymore, (I'm speaking generally here, not to anyone in particular) and you're not going to have the same reactions you did to these types of movies no matter what they end up being like. Deal with it.
minstrel wrote:Zarles wrote:The biggest detractors to geek movies are the people that call themselves their biggest fans. It's one of the few aspects of geekdom that truly pisses me off. You're not a kid anymore, (I'm speaking generally here, not to anyone in particular) and you're not going to have the same reactions you did to these types of movies no matter what they end up being like. Deal with it.
Zarles has hit the nail on the head here.
Certain movies, TV shows, songs, and whatnot hit you very deeply when you're young and easily impressed. And you love them for the rest of your life, because they reproduce some part of that emotion and vision that blew your mind when you were a kid.
But you're an adult now, and nothing hits you that way anymore. Nothing produces that innocent joy and wonder. Indy 4 could be a great movie, but it won't reproduce in you the experience that Raiders did, not because it's a poorer movie, but because YOU aren't the same young kid anymore.
It's easy to blame the filmmakers for not wowing you like they used to. But the fact is, now that we're all grown up, we just aren't as easily wowed. It's us, not them.
Lady Sheridan wrote:Spielberg's involvement is the only thing that gives me any hope that it could be good.
Lord Voldemoo wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:Spielberg's involvement is the only thing that gives me any hope that it could be good.
I'm with you here.
There aren't many people in Hollywood with the ability to be heard when they say "That's fucking stupid, George" but Spielberg should be one of them.
If it sucks....we can pretend it didn't happen and wait for Dark Knight and Iron man to come out.
MonkeyM666 wrote:Lord Voldemoo wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:Spielberg's involvement is the only thing that gives me any hope that it could be good.
I'm with you here.
There aren't many people in Hollywood with the ability to be heard when they say "That's fucking stupid, George" but Spielberg should be one of them.
If it sucks....we can pretend it didn't happen and wait for Dark Knight and Iron man to come out.
I'm just wondering, do you guys really think that Spielberg is enough to pull this one through the wuds? He's gotten soft and it's a big project with a lot of fans thumping at their door about it. I wonder if anything can save us from George.
Lady Sheridan wrote:See, I don't entirely buy that. Why do people watch Raiders and the original SW trilogy over and over again if they've grown out of them?
minstrel wrote:My point was that if a sequel (or prequel) comes out much later, after we've grown up, we aren't as easily wowed. The original still has the power to trigger the original emotions through our memories, but the new one doesn't.
I think Lucas, Spielberg, et al should just leave these trilogies alone (Star Wars and Indy, I mean). The SW prequels shouldn't have been made, because the audience had grown up. Likewise, it's tough to sell a new Indy movie 20-some-odd years after the last one. The audience has grown up.
minstrel wrote:I think Lucas, Spielberg, et al should just leave these trilogies alone (Star Wars and Indy, I mean). The SW prequels shouldn't have been made, because the audience had grown up. Likewise, it's tough to sell a new Indy movie 20-some-odd years after the last one. The audience has grown up.
Ribbons wrote:minstrel wrote:My point was that if a sequel (or prequel) comes out much later, after we've grown up, we aren't as easily wowed. The original still has the power to trigger the original emotions through our memories, but the new one doesn't.
I think Lucas, Spielberg, et al should just leave these trilogies alone (Star Wars and Indy, I mean). The SW prequels shouldn't have been made, because the audience had grown up. Likewise, it's tough to sell a new Indy movie 20-some-odd years after the last one. The audience has grown up.
Although I think the original trilogy will stand the test of time compared to the prequels, which probably will not. Then again, it's still hard to get a completely accurate read because if you go in thinking one's a classic and the other's not, it might influence how you see the film.
Ribbons wrote:minstrel wrote:My point was that if a sequel (or prequel) comes out much later, after we've grown up, we aren't as easily wowed. The original still has the power to trigger the original emotions through our memories, but the new one doesn't.
I think Lucas, Spielberg, et al should just leave these trilogies alone (Star Wars and Indy, I mean). The SW prequels shouldn't have been made, because the audience had grown up. Likewise, it's tough to sell a new Indy movie 20-some-odd years after the last one. The audience has grown up.
Although I think the original trilogy will stand the test of time compared to the prequels, which probably will not. Then again, it's still hard to get a completely accurate read because if you go in thinking one's a classic and the other's not, it might influence how you see the film.
Lady Sheridan wrote:Ribbons wrote:minstrel wrote: My point was that if a sequel (or prequel) comes out much later, after we've grown up, we aren't as easily wowed. The original still has the power to trigger the original emotions through our memories, but the new one doesn't.
I think Lucas, Spielberg, et al should just leave these trilogies alone (Star Wars and Indy, I mean). The SW prequels shouldn't have been made, because the audience had grown up. Likewise, it's tough to sell a new Indy movie 20-some-odd years after the last one. The audience has grown up.
Although I think the original trilogy will stand the test of time compared to the prequels, which probably will not. Then again, it's still hard to get a completely accurate read because if you go in thinking one's a classic and the other's not, it might influence how you see the film.
Well, I think accuracy can be found in looking at the generation who saw the prequels, quite possibly, before they saw the OT. I don't know a single child who idolized Anakin Skywalker or Obi-Wan Kenobi the way we did Han and Luke. They lacked the original attachment, but failed to make one with the prequels. I wonder if George "I made them for kids" Lucas even recognizes he failed them just as badly...
I'm sure he'd just say that it was "those darn kids today," totally dismissing the fact that they worship H@rry Potter, Aragorn and Jack Sparrow.
Chairman Kaga wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:Ribbons wrote:minstrel wrote: My point was that if a sequel (or prequel) comes out much later, after we've grown up, we aren't as easily wowed. The original still has the power to trigger the original emotions through our memories, but the new one doesn't.
I think Lucas, Spielberg, et al should just leave these trilogies alone (Star Wars and Indy, I mean). The SW prequels shouldn't have been made, because the audience had grown up. Likewise, it's tough to sell a new Indy movie 20-some-odd years after the last one. The audience has grown up.
Although I think the original trilogy will stand the test of time compared to the prequels, which probably will not. Then again, it's still hard to get a completely accurate read because if you go in thinking one's a classic and the other's not, it might influence how you see the film.
Well, I think accuracy can be found in looking at the generation who saw the prequels, quite possibly, before they saw the OT. I don't know a single child who idolized Anakin Skywalker or Obi-Wan Kenobi the way we did Han and Luke. They lacked the original attachment, but failed to make one with the prequels. I wonder if George "I made them for kids" Lucas even recognizes he failed them just as badly...
I'm sure he'd just say that it was "those darn kids today," totally dismissing the fact that they worship H@rry Potter, Aragorn and Jack Sparrow.
Odd from my experience any kids that like I've known who fit that bill are super obsessed with Obi Wan, Yoda and Anakin atleast as much as Potter et al. On top of that most kids I knew at the time enjoyed Jar Jar.
Chairman Kaga wrote:Although I think the original trilogy will stand the test of time compared to the prequels, which probably will not. Then again, it's still hard to get a completely accurate read because if you go in thinking one's a classic and the other's not, it might influence how you see the film.
Chairman Kaga wrote:Odd from my experience any kids that like I've known who fit that bill are super obsessed with Obi Wan, Yoda and Anakin atleast as much as Potter et al. On top of that most kids I knew at the time enjoyed Jar Jar.
Lady Sheridan wrote:Chairman Kaga wrote:Odd from my experience any kids that like I've known who fit that bill are super obsessed with Obi Wan, Yoda and Anakin atleast as much as Potter et al. On top of that most kids I knew at the time enjoyed Jar Jar.
Maybe it's regional!
It was weird--I was baby-sitting a little boy at the time The Phantom Menace came out. He was totally obsessed with Star Wars. I said "Oh, you know the new one is coming out this summer right?" I've never seen such a blank look on a kid's face. It hadn't even occurred to him to wonder how Anakin became Darth Vader.
They moved away before the movie came out, so I never did get to find out what he thought of it. I saw him at the theatre though...
Chairman Kaga wrote:Good Point Papa. The two men who shifted all of hollywood from the studio system to one part of a multi-national coporation system.
Bluebottle wrote:the other possibility (regarding LV and LS' earlier comments) is that ultimately, Lucas felt that the mythos is his (which it is) and decided to go with his own storyline.
now you and i know that he's a little older, he hasn't sat in the directors chair for a long time, he's not the man he used to be - probably not the best choice for writing and directing these films.
but HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT.
take "egotistic" out of it... what about just plain "ego".
I wonder if anyone told him?
They must have. The cutting of Jar Jar as a major character going forward was clearly, to me, a concession on his part. He must have known that there were issues.
He's turned over some creative control before with the OT...to Kasdan and to Kershner, with great success. He was able to put his ego aside. Unfortunately he wasn't able to, for the most part, with the prequels.
Here, Koepp is writing the screenplay and Steve is directing...hopefully something good will come out of that.
Retardo_Montalban wrote:I don't know about this "nostalgia" theory you guys are talking about. I have 7 nephew and neices, with a 13 year gap between them and none of them really have any die hard movies that they love. The only exceptions I can think of are Ghimli movies and Pixar. Movies that have a very different creation process than the blockbusters that we've come to expect to wow us. I just don't see excitement in them that me and my sister's had when we were their age. Them kids hardly watch anything more than once, except for Labyrinth and T2, which are waaaaay before their time.
Movies aren't made the way they used to be. Not the big budget blockbusters that were the hallmarks of our youth at least. Now a days with all the screenings and focus groups and armies of producers and banks cutting funding depending on how much you appeal to a certain demographic. These huge movies often become generic messes. Of course, this doesn't apply to George Lucas. He bankrolls his movie out of his own pocket. He's just lost his will to create and is thriving off past successes. Until these studios create a new business model for their big pictures, we're going to be hard pressed for the magic of our childhood.
Chairman Kaga wrote:Another good point BB. To add to that I think Fandom is wrong or delusional or both to expect the same product from any artist years down the line.I wonder if anyone told him?
They must have. The cutting of Jar Jar as a major character going forward was clearly, to me, a concession on his part. He must have known that there were issues.
He's turned over some creative control before with the OT...to Kasdan and to Kershner, with great success. He was able to put his ego aside. Unfortunately he wasn't able to, for the most part, with the prequels.
Here, Koepp is writing the screenplay and Steve is directing...hopefully something good will come out of that.
I don't think it's ego so much that Lucas had major stress related issues on Star Wars that kept him away from directing for years.
Chairman Kaga wrote:I don't think it's ego so much that Lucas had major stress related issues on Star Wars that kept him away from directing for years.
Bluebottle wrote:
What I find funny here is that Lucas was once heralded as a visionary and a rebel for bucking the system... But now, even though he still holds those same ideals, fans hate him because he wants to do everything himself, and they don't trust him with the materials that he created in the first place.
Lady Sheridan wrote:However, there's something in his stubborn unwillingness to let anyone have a crack at that script that says he KNEW it was flawed and he went ahead anyway. If you're confident in your project, you'll let someone else critique it. He didn't. And that makes him a bad artist.
Lady Sheridan wrote: Just once, I'd love to hear him praise someone like Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan or Gore Verbinski. I'd like to see him praise the innovation of "Sin City" or "300." SOMETHING to show me he hasn't become a soulless cash machine, lost in his own glory days.
Retardo_Montalban wrote:Maybe self hatred. Because he knows that he's just a creatively vapid shill, who recycles a generic consensus of what people want to see in Star Wars and creates a shallow film filled with special FX and lame winks and nods to his previously successful films.
Lady Sheridan wrote:I'm glad he's praised Peter Jackson, so I'll eat my words on that, but look at that article. "I'm not about Star Wars, Star Wars is as far from me as you can get, I'm going to make movies I've thought about for 30 years. I'm avant garde." Where is anything that contradicts the "distortion" I'm conjecturing on...
Who's stopping him from doing that? If he's so avant garde and artistic, why is his first post-Star Wars movie...Indiana Jones 4? And he's already going "whatever, the fans will hate it." That's far from an excited, confident artist.
I'll admit, none of us know the guy. I'm only speculating from interviews I've read and seen. He's a lost soul and it's a shame, as he has the money and resources to make or do anything he wants.
Lady Sheridan wrote:I'm glad he's praised Peter Jackson, so I'll eat my words on that, but look at that article. "I'm not about Star Wars, Star Wars is as far from me as you can get, I'm going to make movies I've thought about for 30 years. I'm avant garde."
Who's stopping him from doing that? If he's so avant garde and artistic, why is his first post-Star Wars movie... Indiana Jones 4?
Lady Sheridan wrote:Where is anything that contradicts the "distortion" I'm conjecturing on...
Lady Sheridan wrote:And he's already going "whatever, the fans will hate it." That's far from an excited, confident artist.
Lady Sheridan wrote:Where are these smaller films he dreams of making? Why does he continually go back and tinker with his one masterpiece? Is it because, deep down, he knows he can't produce anything else?
DaleTremont wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:Where are these smaller films he dreams of making? Why does he continually go back and tinker with his one masterpiece? Is it because, deep down, he knows he can't produce anything else?
The Lucas empire is an "invervted pyramid balancing on a pea."
Chairman Kaga wrote:I think it's obvious he doesn't literally mean all fans or even a majority merely the vocal complaintists. Do you really think he's wrong? I mean hasn't Lucas bashing grown from disappointment over the prequels to just bashing everything the man says and does?
Zarles wrote:DaleTremont wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:Where are these smaller films he dreams of making? Why does he continually go back and tinker with his one masterpiece? Is it because, deep down, he knows he can't produce anything else?
The Lucas empire is an "invervted pyramid balancing on a pea."
Uh, not really. Lucasfilm is FAR more diverse and widespread than six freakin' movies.
Zarles wrote:I agree, and I can't say I blame him. I'd say he's eaten enough fanboy shit for ten lifetimes.
Lady Sheridan wrote:If only he'd left the OT alone, done the prequels, and started work on something altogether new, I think you'd see a much different reaction from the world of fandom.
Lord Voldemoo wrote:Let me ask you one question: did you find the prequels to be well-written?
Lady Sheridan wrote:It's grown and while I think some of it is cruel and unjustified, I also think he tends to fuel it with off-the-cuff remarks like the one in Vanity Fair, like the recent "Blockbuster movies are dead." It makes him appear reactionary and out of touch.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest