The Empire Strikes Back

[miker]

What a ridiculous title for a film.

Lucas may suck at directing, but has anyone actually *bothered* to watch other interesting, and dare I say indie-slanted films to be exec'd by Lucasfilm?

I still rate 'Tucker' and 'Mishima'.

I still pine for the 80s Spielberg/Lucas/Zemeckis/Scorcese 'golden' years, but these are OLD MEN now.

Anyone who is slagging off Lucas, I challenge you to achieve what he has achieved by the time you are an OAP, or even by the time you reach 30 which was really when Lucas stopped producing his finest IMHO.

What? Am I defending Lucas?! No.

But the guy HAS managed to mix private life/creativity with awesome saleability, if not now then definitely in the past.

Lucas still invests in the film-industry, is still taking risks. If nothing else, that is commendable.

I guess it's just a case of the angry young men ripping into the old-school, just as Lucas and Coppola did in their hey-day.

So, rip away, but don't forget your stinking industry that you want to be part of!!

[no_one119]

Another thing to remember is that Lucas is the ultimate independent filmmaker. He funds all his own projects.

The $110 million he spent on Ep I came from his pocket. This has been the case since 'The Empire Strikes Back.' 20th Century Fox simply distribute the films.

[Thousanth]

Hell his films make 200+ million, so I guess he can afford to fund them himself.

------------------
Thousanth
THOUSANTH ENTERTAINMENT
AND PRODUCTIONS.
"A good director elevates his film above all limitations placed on it...above its genre, script, acting and production. A good director IS the film."

[hairbrain]

Sure there was a golden time... `Close Encounters` and `Jaws` are fantastic. The aura of `StarWars` `The Empire Strikes Back` profoundly influenced my childhood. And who can forget `Indiana Jones` and `ET`. Yeah I grew up on this stuff. `Alien` `Bladerunner` the list goes on.

But this was a LONG time ago (the late 70's to early 80's). It was a challenging new period of cinema which brought into focus the idea of the `Blockbuster`. Since this time, IMO, the blockbuster has been chasing its own tail trying to get mass appeal, bums on seats, and visceral excitement. Year after year we venture to the cinema in hope of that buzz. But for the last 15 years the money behind blockbusters has unerringly lost the plot.

The state of popular cinema at the moment is DIRE, absolutely DIRE. And whats worse most people will agree that its crap. So actually the masses are now going to see crap which isn't quite as good as the old 80's blockbusters and they know its crap too but it's a kind of saturday night out for the family thing. So executives wish to replicate the dross which is coming out because that's what sells.

Whereas, in the early 80's, people like Lucas and Spielberg rode the market... now the market rides them and everyone else in Hollywood. Is that something I should aspire towards?

Spielberg, Lucas, Scott, Scorcese, and more have all committed crimes against cinema. In creating the `Blockbuster` they simultaneously opened a new chapter of cinematic history and set back the development of film (in america) about 20 years. For a brief period, from the late 60's to the early 80's a window opened in the `Studio System` and a flood of daring innovative and exciting films came out. Had it not been for Lucas etc this might of continued but instead a HUGE money making machine closed around the new blockbuster kids and created the hollywood monster which exists today. Just like the studio's of old they feed us what they believe we'll like.

I was reading an interview with one of the exec's behind Burton's `Planet of the Apes`. He said that Burton's film was gonna be less thought provoking because people don't like to have to think when they go to the cinema these days they just want to be entertained. Surely this profoundly misses the piont that the original `Planet of the apes` IS exciting and entertaining BECAUSE it is thought provoking and the masses enjoy that.

So, to end my rant, we've got a chicken and the egg syndrome where audiences who want entertainment, and true entertainment is thrilling and thought provoking, are being told that the entertainment they want is boom boom bang bang lowest common denominator mindless pap. Lucas, Spileberg, Scott, Scorcese, Woo, Tarrantino, etc are accomplices in this murder of popular cinema.

p.s. sure they're accomplished craftsmen. A painter maybe a good painter but if I don't like what he/she paints then I'm not gonna hang it on my walls. Whats more film is a communicative medium so if the camera angles are all right and the lighting works, but the result just doesn't grab me then, in my ruthless opinion, that film has failed to communicate with me and pull me into it. The film is therefore a failure.

[austintash]

I agree, but what crimes against cinema did Scorsese commit? He never really made a blockbuster, and his most successful film was Cape Fear in 1991. (Or John Woo or Ridley Scott, for that matter, apart from making a lot of crap after Alien & Blade Runner.)

Tarantino is a pain. Pulp Fiction is still in Empire's top ten films, but has anyone tried to watch it recently? Boring, boring, boring. At least 30 mins too long. And you can't make any sort of crime or gangster film these days without people assuming you going to make some sub-Tarantino torture fest. Jackie Brown was better but so devoid of sensation as to be almost comatose. And I'm really less interested in hearing another conversation about breakfast cereals, crappy television shows, hamburgers and the rest of the irrelevant pop-culture crap which passes for characterisation in the average Tarantino masterpiece.

The best film he ever made was True Romance (because he didn't direct it).

[ilpostino]

Maybe the audience still go to see these crap films of late is becasue they just want to pass the time, but generally there has been an air of apathy amongst cinema goers. I don't think audiences go into to a film hoping that there going to have to think about it you have to make them think about it without them realising it.

[wolfwood]

You think "The Empire Strikes Back" is a crappy title? I've heard that Episode 2 is gonna be called...

Brace yourself.


"ATTACK OF THE CLONES"

What the hell, Lucas. What the hell.

[Thousanth]

The quality of A films has gone down in the last 15-20 years. Hell its made a steady drop since horror was introduced.
A film that has no other purpose then to make money, and showoff cutting-edge special effects should be a heresy. (I speak most vividly of Pearl Harbor, but hell we can throw Planet of the Apes and Jurassic Park 3 into there too)
Whatever happened to movies that made people stop and think "Good God what is heppening to us?" If you want one of those you either have to look in indie circles or look at the stright-to-viedo rack.
Oh well as long as we can laught at the unfunny and scream at the unscary, The world is set.
BTW: Could we clone Kubrick? I mean you brits are making sheep, why not a genius?

------------------
Thousanth
THOUSANTH ENTERTAINMENT
AND PRODUCTIONS.
"A good director elevates his film above all limitations placed on it...above its genre, script, acting and production. A good director IS the film."

[austintash]

Since horror was introduced? What, at the start of the 20th century? (Nosferatu, etc).

[shirt]

Here's two cents from the Canadian...

Dudes... These directors have all made UNBELIEVABLE films within the last ten years!

Spielberg = Schindler's List (1993).

Scorsese = Bringing Out The Dead (1999).

And you have to admit Scott is one of the best producers... as for Lucas... HELP US! Well... actually... he did produce Willow.