New Theory: Steven Spielberg Ruined Star Wars

skyjedi2005:

There are genuine Indiana Jones scenes in that film , but they are few and far between, and i give the success of such scenes to Spielberg, not Lucas who thinks kiddy jokes are so great like nuked fridges and prairie dogs, not to mention jar jar stepping in [stuff].  Or alien saucers.

I'm not the Spielberg fan that I was 15 years ago.  Even 15 years ago I would have leaned to the side of Lucas when trying to give credit for who made Indy so great.  I'm definitely not the Lucas fan that I was 15 years ago either.  So when it comes to assigning blame for ...Crystal Skull, I'm just not sure who is most guilty.  Actually, I don't really care to suss it out, and that's not what this post is about.

I took a couple of sick days last month and spent the time in bed to watch some DVD special features that I've been meaning to watch.  I busted out the Indiana Jones Trilogy boxset and watched the Bonus DVD.  Like most of you, ...Temple of Doom is my least favourite (until recently, that is) movie and the "making of" feature proved to be the most interesting.

Sidebar: It features SS saying that GL claimed he "had 3 of them outlined" when he talked him into making Raiders.  SS scoffs at it now, but at the time he believed him.  Of course, when they sat down to do Indy 2, they had no idea what to do next.

When it came to coming up with the ideas for Indy 2, GL basically said to SS, "Trust me".  SS let him come up the basic plot/set-up for the sequel and select Hyuck/Katz to write the script.

Sidebar: Hyuck and Katz are dragged out of whatever hole they've been in and are interrogated as for why they wrote the worst Indy movie.  They sort of have this wide eyed look to them, like they're not quite sure what they did wrong, but they'll fully comply with the interrogator's commands.

SS delcares that he didn't know much about India or Thuggee culture, so he couldn't do much besides go along with what GL and H/K had decided on- though it did make him a little uncomfortable.  Flash forward a few minutes and SS is commenting on how "dark" the film was.  He repeats how uncomfortable he was with the tone and did what he could to subvert it.  The editors of the doco quite wisely then cut to a clip of Temple of Doom:  A thuggee heavy is bearing down on Short Round or Willie, who is weilding a big hammer.  The heavy takes the hammer and throws it over his shoulder.  The camera cuts to three scrawny thuggees standing in line.  The hammer lands on the head of the centre thuggee who crumples into a pile.  Queue the laughter.

SS continues to talk about how he had to temper the darkness of the film with slapstick humour.

Sound familiar?

So I know that Temple of Doom was a year after Return of the Jedi, and that this technique already seems to be used in RotJ.  So, GL wasn't introduced to it on the set of Temple of Doom.  But was it reinforced?  Was it something that GL learned from SS through their friendship?  I wouldn't think the principle is really in place in Raiders at all, but perhaps it was something that they talked about behind the scenes. 

Is it possible that SS learned it from GL, instead?  Yep.  I do suspect George learned it from Steven, however.  Not that I can put my finger on the exact reasoning behind that though.

In summary, I see a fair amount of pining for what an SS directed Return of the Jedi would have been.  Personally, I'm relieved he didn't.  Sure, there are problems with RotJ, but I think SS was more part of the problem than the unapplied solution.

What do you think?

In the mid 80's Spielberg's positivism hadn't fully been realized. Post Empire of the Sun anything is possible. I don't think he ever had that much influence on SW, but if he had directed ROTJ then things would be completely different. (More ewoks for example.) I do think he made Raiders brilliantly because he knew everything was riding on it for his career to continue. Temple is a simpler serial film that happened to be made in 1984. Last Crusade is a tired and lumbering dinosaur.

As for Indy IV, I'd blame bad scripts, bad choices, both Lucas and Spielberg, David Koepp, and the stupid decision to wait so damn long.

The real question is: Who the hell is lobotomizing our filmmakers?

captainsolo said:

The real question is: Who the hell is lobotomizing our filmmakers?

Dr. Mephesto?

It is also assumed that George Lucas thought to himself after Raiders had come out that people weren't interested in the story, all they wanted was the spectacle.

George thought that people just wanted the roller coaster ride and weren't all that worried about the writing.

I guess he just never assumed that movies should have to worry about replay value.

He's even said that he knew the special effects in the original STAR WARS wouldn't stand up to repeat viewings.

Once again, he's not worried about replay value.

captainsolo said:

In the mid 80's Spielberg's positivism hadn't fully been realized. Post Empire of the Sun anything is possible. I don't think he ever had that much influence on SW, but if he had directed ROTJ then things would be completely different. (More ewoks for example.) I do think he made Raiders brilliantly because he knew everything was riding on it for his career to continue. Temple is a simpler serial film that happened to be made in 1984. Last Crusade is a tired and lumbering dinosaur.

As for Indy IV, I'd blame bad scripts, bad choices, both Lucas and Spielberg, David Koepp, and the stupid decision to wait so damn long.

The real question is: Who the hell is lobotomizing our filmmakers?

George Lucas and his original CGi vision is lobotomizing filmakers.

TMBTM said:

"Temple > Crusade"   So say we all!

Granted, Crusade's introductory sequence is positively cringe-inducing. But I can't even begin to understand the mindset that Temple > Crusade. Sure, Crusade can be campy and cheesy at times, but never quite to the same degree as Temple.

Crusade is tired and uninspired. Temple at least has energy to it. I don't mind the shrilling, cheesy jokes, and screaming because that's what belongs in that particular film. It's meant to be a completely different experience from Raiders.