The Empire Strikes Back

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!!

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.

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."

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.

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).

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif

Is Schindler's List a good film, or simply a very bad film that people have mistaken for a good film? The book was also widely acclaimed but similarly may have been incredibly awful depending on your point of view.

I believe Lucas also exec'd one of Akira Kirasaurwhathehell(of Seven Samuri)'s films in the 90s, possibly Akira's last film?

The Lucas monster beast machines also proactively restore and archive old prints -- SHOCK HORROR -- to digital!!

Then there is (the possibly self-serving) THX certification of cinemas and audio equipment etc ...

Lucas is just a 'different' type of filmmaker with some interesting friends!

And, hey, don't forget Howard the Duck ;-)

Shirt, surely your post should read "made an UNBELIEVABLE film"... the plural being a bit deceptive. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
Personally I'd say that `Saving Private Ryan` was a brilliant, if somewhat harrowing, film. So yes, even for me, there are exceptions. Scorcese? well I just chucked him in there because he's just a tarrantino of the 80's as far as I'm concerned, alongside coppola (with the exception of Apocalypse Now)

Although my mini hall of fame list made great films in the 80's don't you think it's strange that they still have such clout both in the actual industry and in shadowing over so many young film makers. There is at least 10 maybe 15 years between us and that Golden age so why the big hankering after it.

The real test is this... if they released any of those films today would they still stand up? StarWars would probably be seen as some cheesy badly produced sci-fi. Indiana and ET are just cutesy childrens movies with no brains. Scorcese just looks like something off TV. Films that probably would work still today are `Apocalypse Now`, `Jaws`, `Close Encounters`, `Empire Strikes Back`, `Blade Runner`, `Alien`.... hmm that's probably just about it from my point of view.

So, if audiences are now cleverer and expect more than just some cheesy 80's blockbuster, why the big idol worshipping drive to make stuff in the 80's image. Chuck Spielberg and Scott out of the window. Their model is not appropriate any more.

They all represent a hideous `Tyrell` organisation which has hold of hollywood and our movie going minds. Although `Blair Witch` was crap it's still changed alot, along with the Dogma stuff, it's got these guys scared that the movie business is sliding out of their control and that actual talent is emerging from the indie sector. Recently I read that the big studio's we're talking in the US of trying to draft some laws to impose greater restrictions on indie filmmakers. All this because `Blair Witch` got them scared (wallet wise) and they're trying to prevent another incident like that.

hmmm... another red-faced rant from hairbrain!

just remember Coppola's prophetic words in Hearts of Darkness docco:

{paraphrased}

"... a 12 year old with a camcorder could capture the perfect moment on film, a moment of film history ..."

and when that 12 year old grows up, (s)he'll be the first filmmaker to make it from a humble beginning since Quentim emergerd from his video strore clerk roots

Word on the street sez Star Wars Episode III is gonna be called "Episode III: THE THING THAT CAME FROM THE DARK SIDE!!!" http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/eek.gif Oooh, scary!

LOL

I dont understand why everyone hates the title. It is just a title. Ive never heard so much fuss over a title before. I dont just mean here. The press to.

Despin out.

Probably because "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" sound like the titles of Star Wars activity books for young readers. Whereas "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" sound like epics.

i dont understand why in the phantom menace the board of the jedi knight thought anakin skywalker was too old to begin the training but they willingly accept luke quick enough although he must be 21-23 years old. whats that all about?

------------------
I told him not to jump...so he didn't. Damn! Don't you hate anti-climaxes.

Thats because he was the last one. The rest were killed of. He was there only hope. It wasnt out of choice. Just a lack of options.

I don't understand why Darth Vader aka Anakin Skywalker doesn't recognise the droid he built as a child. Obviously that lava pit did fry his brain.

And why don't the all powerful jedi notice a dark aura from Sidious?

and WTF are the midichlorins all about?

and immaculate conception? Please save us!

I hope these ambiguities get explained in the upcoming films, but some how I doubt it.

At least the Greek legends are (largely) consistent.

[anorak removed]

As McGregor says re Attack of the clones: "It's a terrible, terrible title."

I think the title is the least of our worries after the sloppy and childish Ep1.

whats in a name? The Beatles is a pretty stupid name for a band.

Howard the Duck

I agree that TPM was childish and stupid.

To be fair to Lucas though, he did have to get a lot of back stories started.

Give him credit for introducing all the main characters and situations so they are set up to tie in with Ep IV: A New Hope.

I hope AOTC will be much better (could it be worse!).

For me, Ep 1 lacked the characterisation of the previous trilogy. No Solo character who brought a lot to it and little interplay between the characters.

He als defends himself by saying that it's aimed at 12 year-olds. And??