What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Movies 52 - 1917: Sonic the Bad Boys of Prey

Status
Not open for further replies.
St. Clown said:
He did have the first three movies mapped out when the first movie was released, but a lot of changes took place back when people were willing to actually be editors to and for him and not simply be Yes Men. That's why Eps. 4 and 5 were so much better than the rest. By Eps. 6 (Jedi), Lucas had about 90% control of the brand, which is why the toy concerns became so prominent, and Eps. 1-3 were train wrecks. Eps. 7-9 suffered from not having a complete story outline before production began. I still like Eps. 8 the best of those three; they took some chances with the characters.

ETA: There's a graphic novel that was release a few years back called "The Star Wars," which was based upon the original script for Star Wars. It shines a bright light on just how much changed between the original story and what made it to film. Editors are a good thing.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The bit about Editors vs Yes Men is one of the oldest stories in Hollywood and indeed anywhere (c.f. Stephen King Syndrome). The best example is Talcott Parsons, who when he became God Emperor of American Sociology used to dictate his books to his secretary who then sent them immediately to make galleys -- hence his thousand-page books which sound as though they were written in German which, as a graduate student under his graduate students, I then had to read.

It's not a good model for either creative or intellectual clarity.
 
Last edited:
St. Clown said:
Ep. 5 had a bunch of re-writes done to it, as originally Luke and Leia weren't supposed to be related. It wasn't until George wanted to promote Han a bit that he changed their dynamics. In fact, there was a SW book released before Ep. 5 was written, which Lucas oversaw for story content, called the Eye of Mindor. In that book Luke and Leia become a couple, and are in no way related. Lucas was originally going to use that book as the builder for Empire. As to Jedi, the Ewoks were a late thing as Endor was originally supposed to be a Wookie world, and Han was supposed to die in the rescue from Jabba's palace. Lucas changed those elements because he wanted to sell more toys; that's something that's been well documented.
Click to expand...

Is Eye of Mindor what became "Splinter of the Minds Eye"? If so I knew all of that except the Luke and Leia part. In truth though that was never going to be the movie it was actually written to be a sequel book in case Star Wars failed. I never read it (one of the few books I didn't read) but a lot of elements showed up in later films.

Also, while toys played a big part I believe the cost of the Wookie costumes would have been extreme as well which made it easy to abandon. Nowadays it would be nothing but in 1981-2 that would be very expensive and hard to deal with in the jungle.

Kirshner saved Empire from being a disaster because he understood how dialogue worked. Before his (often in real time) re-writes the cast hated the script especially Ford. That is why Empire is the least cheesy of the 3 films especially for Luke and Han. Star Wars is all cliches all the time (which is part of why it is awesome) and Jedi is basically a Saturday Morning cartoon for half of it. We can only imagine what would have happened if Speilberg had co-directed like he was supposed to. (Directors Guild doesn't allow that so he had to drop out)

Kepler,

Lucas had a "story" but it was never the 9 arch deal some of the crazies believe. (he has changed his story over the years) I forget all of the details but I know originally he had a short story or treatment just about Anakin but it never really got off the ground in his head and then he pivoted to Luke and what became Episode 4. He mapped out the basics of the trilogy but not a lot of the details. (Vader as Luke's father, Luke and Leia and so forth) Because no one really thought it was going to be a hit he was prepared to make novels to tell the rest of the story if it failed. The novels were nothing like what the movies became because obviously he had to flesh out the real story beats based on what the audience responded to in the film.

Once he mapped out 4-6 he had ideas for 1-3 and without pushback he worked on them and they became the cluster that was the Prequels.

7-9 again he had an idea but no real stories. It wasn't until years later that Timothy Zahn wrote 7-9 which were excellent books better written than anything Star Wars films ever did. I still know people upset those weren't the basis for the Di$ney Trilogy. (by that point the actors were too old but you could have still used it in some capacity) I honestly don't remember if Zahn came up with most of it or if Lucas gave hi his old ideas...but Lucas had to approve any and all trilogy ideas so he definitely signed off on it. (now they are all all "Legends" because...well...Di$ney) In all honesty those should have been made instead of the prequels.

Lucas is like Ridley Scott, good idea men and back in a time where innovation made movie making true art they were very very good. They are so surrounded by people who would never dare challenge them that everything they did after that fell off a cliff. Neither should make films without loud voices telling them no so we dont get dreck like The Phantom Menace and Prometheus. (Prometheus had such promise...)
 
Last edited:
Handyman said:
Lucas is like Ridley Scott, good idea men and back in a time where innovation made movie making true art they were very very good. They are so surrounded by people who would never dare challenge them that everything they did after that fell off a cliff. Neither should make films without loud voices telling them no so we dont get dreck like The Phantom Menace and Prometheus. (Prometheus had such promise...)
Click to expand...

This is what happens to everybody. Stone, Spielberg, Nolan, Lynch, and Coppola actually made good movies once. Even Welles, who had more talent and originality than all of them put together, became bloated, repetitive, and dated. Goddard, Fellini, and Allen -- all on a categorically different level than any of the above but Welles -- had bloat at the end.

How many directors actually produced their best work late in their careers? I can think of only one inarguable case (Buñuel).
 
Handyman said:
Is Eye of Mindor what became "Splinter of the Minds Eye"? If so I knew all of that except the Luke and Leia part. In truth though that was never going to be the movie it was actually written to be a sequel book in case Star Wars failed. I never read it (one of the few books I didn't read) but a lot of elements showed up in later films.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you have the title right. I never read it either, but read some stuff about the book, and an interview with the author. In truth, his working with Lucas sounded a lot like what Timothy Zahn had to say about working with Lucas when writing the Thrawn triology, that he had a lot of input and final say regarding story elements and use of various terms/language.
 
Kepler said:
This is what happens to everybody. Stone, Spielberg, Nolan, Lynch, and Coppola actually made good movies once. Even Welles, who had more talent and originality than all of them put together, became bloated, repetitive, and dated. Goddard, Fellini, and Allen -- all on a categorically different level than any of the above but Welles -- had bloat at the end.

How many directors actually produced their best work late in their careers? I can think of only one inarguable case (Buñuel).
Click to expand...

Stone went nuts...Spielberg pretty much makes the same style of film he always did it is just dated now because an entire generation aped him. Coppola I can't even think of anything he made after The Rainmaker which I liked because I love Matt Damon and Danny Devito. BTW I went on the tour of his winery...very very cool. (they got the gf and I uber drunk so we are members ;^) ) He has the Tucker from the film, he has a lot of the prop memorabilia from the Godfather films...lots of really cool stuff. Apparently he spends a lot of time there when he can and will just hang with guests and smoke cigars.
 
St. Clown said:
Yeah, you have the title right. I never read it either, but read some stuff about the book, and an interview with the author. In truth, his working with Lucas sounded a lot like what Timothy Zahn had to say about working with Lucas when writing the Thrawn triology, that he had a lot of input and final say regarding story elements and use of various terms/language.
Click to expand...

Zahn always did an excellent job with his books. In fact a lot of people did. Kevin Anderson wrote a trilogy that was cool that took place after the Zahn Trilogy which was centered around Luke's Academy which would have worked way better than The Last Jedi. And the book "The Rise of Darth Vader" was better than almost all of Episode 3 and I liked Episode 3.
 
Kepler said:
This is what happens to everybody. Stone, Spielberg, Nolan, Lynch, and Coppola actually made good movies once. Even Welles, who had more talent and originality than all of them put together, became bloated, repetitive, and dated. Goddard, Fellini, and Allen -- all on a categorically different level than any of the above but Welles -- had bloat at the end.

How many directors actually produced their best work late in their careers? I can think of only one inarguable case (Buñuel).
Click to expand...

If you break up Hitchcock's career his best period was one of his later ones. From 1955-60. His career spanned from 1925-1976.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
If you break up Hitchcock's career his best period was one of his later ones. From 1955-60. His career spanned from 1925-1976.
Click to expand...

Great call! I would say his best are scattered all through his career (1935-40 is even stronger than 1955-60), but that's exactly what we're looking for.

My Hitchcock ranking FWIW. Every one of these movies is in the HOF.

Vertigo (1958)
Rebecca (1940)
The 39 Steps (1935)
Strangers on a Train (1951)
Rope (1948)
Spellbound (1945)
Psycho (1960)
The Lady Vanishes (1938)
North by Northwest (1959)
Lifeboat (1944)
Rear Window (1954)
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Great call! I would say his best are scattered all through his career (1935-40 is even stronger than 1955-60), but that's exactly what we're looking for.

My Hitchcock ranking FWIW. Every one of these movies is in the HOF.

Vertigo (1958)
Rebecca (1940)
The 39 Steps (1935)
Strangers on a Train (1951)
Rope (1948)
Spellbound (1945)
Psycho (1960)
The Lady Vanishes (1938)
North by Northwest (1959)
Lifeboat (1944)
Rear Window (1954)
Click to expand...

My tops are in that list. But, I prefer Notorious and Frenzy to Spellbound or Lifeboat.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
My tops are in that list. But, I prefer Notorious and Frenzy to Spellbound or Lifeboat.
Click to expand...

Lifeboat hasn't aged well.

Spellbound is very uneven. But it's way more than the Dali sequence. You can see Hitch playing with the internal psychological states that will all come together as genius later in Vertigo.

The only Hitch movies I ever *must* watch when I come across them are Rebecca and The 39 Steps, because they are the only ones with characters I care about. The rest are chess pieces. I cannot tell you how little I care about Jimmy Stewart and Kim Novak as people -- they are such cold, cold fish. But watching them dance is like watching a perfect psychological ballet. It's the closest* we ever came to making our own Murnau film.

* That and Mulholland Drive.


 
Last edited:
Never seen the 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It's great. Frederick Marsh is so cool, and Miriam Hopkins gets the sap flowing.
 
I can remember watching A New Hope and Empire and being awe filled.

For watching 2 and 3, I really wish I would have done grad school stuff tonight.
 
mookie watched the replacements this morning. First time, and whatever. amazing list of movies mookie gave a pass on first time around....like the net which was viewed a month ago.

need to watch the big Lebowski soon too, as it’s also on there
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top