Mavericks

Anchorhead, "in a nutshell" doesn't equivalent to "accurate", "comprehensive".

I repeate once again: when I dropped the link I didn't consider it to be looked upon in the deserved/non-deserved fashion. I don't mind credentials at all, I don't watch all these Baftas, Oscars, Nobels etc. My intention was as stated: to make an attempt to draw attention on the site dedicated to the ORIGINAL TRILOGY on the part of members of this community to an opportunity to pay tribute in some minimal way to the man who directed one of the parts of the beloved Saga purely of human considerations. Everyone is free to sign or NOT this petition, that's all. I would sign alike petition regarding any former SW alumni. 

Bingowings said:

Marquand died at the age of 49, which is an awfully young age to die but most directors who are going to make a mark do it by then.

Herzog, Allen, Spielberg, Kubrick, Coppola, Truffaut, Polanski, De Palma etc had all had significant success in their 30's.

Hitchcock and Bergman didn't get their big hits until their 50s but they too had been astonishingly prolific and accomplished long before that.

Richard seemed to be a nice guy but I'm pretty sure there are Welsh film makers, actors, technicians who deserve an honor such as this one before him.

To each his own. Everyone has its own destiny. There's no and can not be the formula of success. But what I do know is that some artists, who later gained world-wide acknowledgement, began their careers relatively lately and came from different backgrounds. I don't want to go through a multitude of other directors and actors of theater and cinema, but I'll take as an example another SW director: Irvin Kershner. His first full-length motion picture came when he was in his 30s (it means over 30). He'd done much photographing, painting, playing music. Marquand booted up his career as that of an actor and continued  going to direct on TV. Both Marquand and Kershner were semi-obscure for large audiences before SW. You could say that Kershner had done more movies (as obviously your lines above imply), but I disagree with this approach by several reasons:

- I think mastery is matter of quality, not quantity. There're a number of examples from all branches of art that illustrate this. 

- Kersh was of older generation than Marquand and, naturally, started his way earlier. In most ways the careers of both had been developing at equal speeds with Kersher slightly ahead: by the age of 45 (when he became involved with SW) Marquand had done 4 movies (2 TV from which 1 was documentary) plus 4 other TV projects to count in, participating as producer and writer, Kersher by the similar age had done 7 full-length movies. The most difficult is what variable we should introduce to measure such entity as "experience"? Is there such need at all? Maybe some critics need but I doubt the directors do. Any experience - bad or good, small or large - contributes to formation of directorial skills. What is better 7 or 4? Of course 7. Does this assume that one who did 4 motion pictures plus other credits is a worse director than one who did 7 motion pictures? I don't know, depends on how one who directed 4 approved himself and the same applies to the other guy and it's important what the merits every of those movies had. Also it depends on what works we tend to remember and associate a director most often with: speaking of Kersh (pre-Empire) I can recall "A fine madness" and "The eyes of Laura Mars" and Marquand (pre-Jedi) evokes "Needle of the eye" and "The Legacy". And if I were fan of the Beatles then I would add "The Beatles" doc (I'm more into metal, so..). However we shouldn't be limited to SW and should move past it: Kershner got involved with 2 block-busters and Marquand had done 3 little-budget movies. It should be noticed, however, that while Kershner worked on action movies, Marquand went onto life-drama sort of things that dealt with personal emotions, psychology and its speaks volumes about his predilections that were far from "faster, more intense!": that's why, though SW had a lots of things about action, the decision to hire Marquand (taking into account the situation Lucas faced at that time) for the final chapter was as good as to hire Kersh for the middle one. It lets me to conclude to the highest degree of probability that if Lucas did take on Jedi for real, then we had it "faster and more intense" even with Kasdan at the table. Besides, from what I read I can make an impression that Marquand was under much less favorable conditions and not because he hadn’t had experience with blockbusters, but  because budget and timeline restrictions: I’m far from filmmaking professionally but if I were then the only thing that would cause me a lot of tension would be these requirements. Artist needs  psychological freedom. Kershner had it but Marquand had less of it. As everyone in Lucas company and the latter is on Lucas‘ conscience. One should also not forget that Kershner’s career ended by 1990 meanwhile Marquand’s career had been gaining momentum (his last film «Heirs» was released posthumously). Who knows maybe 90s and 2000s would see the high noon for him? Maybe not? By the way, one of the greatest talents of camera Alan Hume liked Marquand very much, teamed up with him on several subsequent projects and was looking forward to work with him on even more of these. 

Marquand was a safe pair of hands, a journeyman director after Kirsh and his 'artistic' over-budgetness.

First of all, not «Kirsh», but Kersh. Second, in the forefront of mass Empire idolatry erupted later with advent of Internet and subsequent manipulation with public opinion on the part of media in favor of this movie that led to birth of some urban myths that are still strong, people forgot (or maybe never knew) what the press of the era figured out (and very well) about who’s who in Lucas’ kingdom, namely, that both Kershner and Marquand whatever good or bad they were, used to be, in your words, «journeyman directors», tools of Lucas and interpreters of the Kasdan’s script. And let me remind you that none other than Lucas said the golden words: «there are three rules in the real estate business:location, location, location; and three rules in the movie business:script, script, script.» A director doesn’t operate in an open vacuum: he collaborates with a scriptwriter or, to be more precise, fulfills a written script.  I was astonished when read that after Brackett completed the awful and silly 1st draft, Lucas was forced to write the 2nd one by himself (!!!) and it already contained many key elements as well as plot twists and style of some dialogues that entered the final movie with Kasdan reworking the rest of dialogues and omitting some scenes. Considering Lucas problems with writing it looks like a giant accomplishment! You may dislike that but it seems in composing structure of Empire we now have pleasure to watch  Lucas and Kasdan held more important position than Kershner. Interestingly, everybody mentions him more frequently than Larry Kasdan, who determined the tone of Empire and deserved his fame no less than Kersh if not more. And with all Kershner’s talent, expertise, wisdom and vision, but if the script was shitty so would be the movie and I doubt he would be able to save the day. Kersh could, of course, change some minor dialogue (Marquand also did this, by the way) - that’s what he did eventually, but Kersh couldn’t write the entire script. Hell, maybe we should start to worship John Williams - he was the guy who gave us Imperial March, earlier  - the crawl music, Binary Sunset, Throne Room themes and music in SW is on the same equality with visuals as in opera, so maybe John Williams is the true hero? Or maybe we should do the same regarding everyone from ILM, beginning with Jim Bloom? Who’s standing in queue else - Peter Suschitzky? Frank Oz - thank to him Yoda gained his remarkable character and who’s gonna claim that such prominent portrayal could be delivered by someone other? Maybe Frank Oz was true discovery and the piece de resistance of ESB?

So, let’s come to earth and be more realistic. I understand all this «the best in the series», «the greatest director» sentimental dithyrambs but let’s stay objective. Filmmaking is a teamwork.

And yes Lucas was once concerned with what people thought of his work.

By AOTC Lucas stopped caring what those twerps had to say.

I was talking not about «people», I was talking exactly about critics. But anyway, I’m throwed aback! Where did you get this info from to calculate exactly that «Lucas stopped...» just by AOTC (2002)?  I remember reading an interview with him on the opening day of the first release of TPM in London (1999) (might be mistaken) in which he said he didn’t care of what critics were saying, that the prime criteria for him were box office receipts! So, continuing to pull the term back we could reach the true day Z, I think (one more sarcasm). And maybe someday we will realize that this day never existed as didn’t the sources to provide verified support for opposite claims, the sources I’ve never come across. 

He was notoriously frustrated by what he saw as flaws in the first film, even when it was a hit.

He was winding down the series that made him famous and solidifying an Empire of his own (while going through a messy marital situation).

So???

I love Star Wars too but if I were to create a Termuera Morrison stage in New Zealand it wouldn't be for his Star Wars work.

Well, Marquand played much more significant part in making a SW movie than Morrison and his Jango Fett which I never cared of anyway and...we’re talking about the OT, not the PT here, right?

Off-topic section? I overlooked this, had I known I would've started it there. My mistake.

Bingowings said

 It's well known that Richard was hired because he would not make waves, would be on budget on schedule and act as yes man to Lucas' production requirements.

It seems to me, you're oversimplifying the whole issue and since I presume you have read Rinzler's "Making of Jedi" - which by the way I find not sufficient regarding Marquand's actual work and directing methods unlike he did that with Kershner, resurrecting Arnold's account - it's strange to hear such words.  

First of all, I'm embarrassed by such speech patterns as "it's well known", "it's considered"... By who, would be my question? And, correct me if I'm mistaken but there was a time when "it was well known that the Earth is flat and square, reshored by 4 whales (elephants)" etc. etc. Personally I try to avoid such cliches and have cultivated in me a strong distrust for any kind of statements that begin with the words "it's well-known" because I think it automatically leads to mob thinking rather than encourages critical mind. "It's well-known" = "it's unknown".

Second, what is "would not make waves"? What "waves"?

Third, your claim combines some elements that may be considered as reflecting objective reality with either misunderstood or misinterpreted ones: the latters are represented by your words "he was hired because he... would be on budget, on schedule". True. Is it so negative in the eyes of yours? Do you think, this made Marquand unique in this case? Considering Lucas' criteria for looking for a new director any of them would be forced to obey this requirement, be it Hitchcoke, Spielberg or Linch, from this perspective any could became "a yes-man" if he agreed to helm the movie. But "to consider the budget" isn't synonymous with "dancing attendance to Lucas". 

Fourth, Marquand was chosen from a very long list and was one of two remaining candidates. There were two prime reasons Lucas decided to go with him:

1. Lucas was impressed with his artistic vision of his own films,  particularly with "Needle of the eye", his professional skills and his human attitude. According to Kasdan Lucas needed different kind of person than Kersh and not because he wanted more of control (as Kurtz suggests), but because 3rd installment was to be relief and Marquand had lighter view of the world than Kersh. [By the way, many tend to forget that a director depends not entirely on himself, his own wishes but on screenwriter as well and the tonal scale of the trilogy was envisioned in advance by Lucas and Kasdan (light-dark-light) and even not by Kershner or Marquand or whoever would direct]. That was the key issue.  

2. Linch's refusal to direct ROTJ.

And that's it. Not for "he's a perfect candidate to be my puppet".

Fifth, all this gets sharper if we recall Lucas' own despisal for directing and whatever you may think of Marquand but he at least loved to work with actors. Hammill liked his style more than Kershner's, by the way; Lucas was mainly second unit director. The most important part of directing actors belonged to Marquand, not Lucas. Whenever on the set, we always hear and see Marquand. Also many ignore the ultimate condition under which Marquand agreed to work on Jedi: close contact with Lucas. The nature of their relations was kind of collaboration, not of knuckle-down. And you know, you may disagree, since it's purely subjective, but after watching his other movies I tend to observe some similarity between them and ROTJ, and indeed there's some romantic  operatic smell, camerawork he spoke of, that could be brought to by Marquand. Apart from that let's not pass by the fact that thank to him we saw Yoda dying on- and not off-screen. 

Other than his work on Jedi what work of major significance did Marquand do? 

Burton was a theatrical and cinematic giant, with a huge body of work behind him many of which were filmed at Pinewood.

You forget one very significant aspect of the whole issue: Marquand died at the age of 49. We'll never know how his career would have succeeded, however he displayed his talent and individuality enough to expect high-promising future.  I personally like his movies he did around the time very much and still find a pleasure to rewatch them many times. Aside "Needle", "Jagged Edge", "Until September" are remarkable movies enough to remember and to resonate with.

  Maybe, Burton deserved more of this honor than Marquand, though I don't pay much attention to such formalities Being-Within-Self(awards, tributes, etc): the only honor that any artist deserves is to be in the memory of people. But there's a human aspect, a very subjective one that is I'm a SW admirer (forgive me if I dislike "a fan") and naturally am sentimental about many things and people related to it, so I din't find anything abnormal about the fact that SW fans want one of the leading men, who helped to create the trilogy, to be honored in some way.

When Lucas made the PT his reputation fell through the floor, when Jedi was getting criticism for things like the Ewoks it was Richard who diverted much of the attention away from George. 

Do you think seriously that Lucas planned to hire some man just to cover his ass? C'mon!  Since when Lucas was so preoccupied to sustain his public credit?? From what I've read he has always had and edge on criticism and it's been the main leit-motif of his interviews. That's why I think this statement fails.

Bingowings said:

Other than being Lucas's directorial prophylactic he didn't do much.

 Oh, that's lovely. Like other director could say.

Bingowings said:

I don't mean to be nasty 

And yet you do. You could easily omit this entrance and cut to the chase.

Other than being Lucas's directorial prophylactic he didn't do much.

 1. This thread was created merely to pay homage to the director of ROTJ by giving a link to the petition, not to discuss what you personally think or not of him. There have to be lots of threads dedicated to this subject you may want to visit instead.

2. If you wanted my opinion on the whole matter of ROTJ/Marquand then I expressed it in one started for this purpose (ROTJ is the best Star Wars movie), though, I guess, I wrote too much for someone to read it from cover to cover - there're too many letters, that's forgivable (sarcasm). 

  3. If you don't want to support this petition, it's your choice. Other than that I don't see any sense to start a similar debate here. Especially, to chew over one and the same crapola coming from many years of internet gossip, various agenda-driven media sources and persons.

The Richard Burton stage would make more sense

What does Richard Burton have in common with the Star Wars? And if you think so you can start your petition too at change.org. Hope you'll succeed. Oh, and May the Force be with You!

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/pinewood-studios-name-one-of-the-stages-at-the-new-pinewood-studios-cardiff-after-the-late-richard-marquand#share

danny_boy said:

 

The Blu Rays(especially upscaled to 4K) are spectacular. Incredible levels of detail

  Wait, how 1080p can be upscaled to 4K? First of all if the signal is Full HD then - when transmitted  - regardless of what def a receiver is it will still be 1080p. When Blu-ray is played on so called "4K" display the image is downscaled to High Definition. Second, 4K is a professional term. There's no such thing as 4K TV, projector or any other device. Ultra HD (horizontal res 3840 pixels) isn't synonymous with 4K (4096 pixels). 4K rather is a marketing gimmick by the large corporations such as Sony, Panasonic to push its overpriced products. You may want to read and watch this:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2013/01/08/ces-2013-why-ultrahd-is-not-4k-video/

DuracellEnergizer said:

Saying "Screw the EU!!!!!! Hope it dies. FOREVER!" just because of one lousy book is silly. There are plenty of other works in the EU that do Han -- and the Han/Leia relationship in particular -- justice.

This story, for example

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/A_Valentine_Story

is an excellent pre-TESB story which explores Han and Leia's developing feelings for one another (the art is awesome as well -- it really captures the spirit of the characters, and the colours are gorgeous).

 

Yes, I'm a bit anti-EU. The thing is that if you want to tell us about some events that for some reasons weren't present in the movies, then make another movie. I wasn't pleased when I learned of a multitude of spin-offs and the criteria is not were they good or not: this should be applied to the quality of the SW movies (not TV series) and - as I said in another thread about episode 7 - if a filmmaker makes a movie depicting events you can understand only by reading about Han and Lando adventures then it's a very weak filmmaking but excellent businessmaking. I prefer to imagine by myself some uncovered plots rather than having them watched and be disappointed. I say so because what I've read left exactly same bitter impression even if considered the best (Thrawn).

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/A_Valentine_Story sounded promising and surely I'll throw eye on it to read in detail :) Thanks for posting it, though I thought that "the spark" between them flashed more earlier, closer to right after ANH :))) Interesting what happened at Ord Mantell and what Leia felt when that Bounty Hunter  came to remind Solo about his debt... ;)

Frankly, never thought of this from such a perspective but mainly because it sounds very extravagant to say the least. This being reinforced by the fact that it was never exploited in the OT. Dark = Sith, Light = Jedi.

Regarding the Thrawn Trilogy I think it's being overrated and when it comes to RATING I'd rather agree with 2-3 stars being given by Amazon buyers. It's interesting that the most of what I managed to find over the internet refers to it in a more flattered manner in than   reviews to ROTJ though in terms of characterization, plot progression and characters interaction the latter FAR surpasses the Thrawn Trilogy that in places goes nowhere and reads pretty boring. That's just MY opinion, but the one I made when reading after being encouraged by multifold gushes of the passionate admirers. The spirit of SW, ESB, ROTJ is gone from these books. It maybe used to be OK in the absence of other stories (Stover, Stackpole) that are said have far better storylines and writing than Zahn whose dialogues tend to remind the prequelish approach and that accent not on the main but background characters such as Wedge etc that we didn't see much in the movies.

hairy_hen, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, everything is subjective. Worked for you, didn't for me. Accept it. Besides, even if "the majority" likes/ dislikes smth it's not  an instruction to automatically obey to. My personal opinion FOR ME is ABOVE generally accepted one. Independent critical thinking is a great thing.

I'm just reading Thrawn Trilogy at the moment FOR THE FIRST TIME (not kidding) so my observations don't fit neither minuses nor pluses  that titles of both threads on EU suggest. I even found Zahn's page on Facebook and posted a comment on this matter there, so in order not to write my opinion from scratch I'll just copy/paste it because it's the essence of what I feel about his Trilogy:

I had heard a lot about the Thrawn Trilogy as of some kind of masterpiece recapturing the spirit of SW movies (The Original Trilogy, of course) and was intrigued enough to read it by myself. So my general impression is a mixed bag: it indeed has many strong points and plot twists and captures attention astrain. I don't know, maybe I'm too subjective cause my fav arc has been that of Han/Leia and the scenes that depicted her pregnancy, her intimate communication with the unborn twins  and especially the one where she finally gives birth to them was particularly touching and impressive as was the single scene of Obi Wan telling Luke Farewell during his (Luke's) Vision/Dream. The characterization of Thrawn hits the mark. However, some dubious decisions beginning with selecting hardly pronounced names of species, creatures and humans (ysalamiri, vrkhrs or whatever, Noghri, Joruus C'Baoth) that were not typical for SW universe with its easy to remember ones (I can barely imagine Carrie, Mark and Harrison uttering it without them sarcastically grinning or loudly laughing) and ending with the idea that some animal could develop ability to deflect the Force took the shine off and it seems these ideas came from some other world more in the style of Tolkien rather than that of Star Wars. Also what is "a Dark Jedi"? We had been supposed to think relying on movies that Luke was the last Jedi with only a potential hidden in Leia as his sister, because other Jedis were exterminated. The concept of the Force that could be present in a cloned Jedi sounds ridiculous as if the soul of a human being could be reproduced in a cloned unit. Besides, the very word combination "Dark Jedi" is similar to "round square": how is that a Jedi could be "Dark". He's a Sith in this case. Some dialogue exchanges between the characters sounded chilly and overstrained as if borrowed from the lexis of kids playing SW in sandpit. Lando's arc could be more elaborated and self-reliant, tied with the New Republic; hell, we know him as "a gambler","a Universal scoundrel" as Han had described him and it would be awesome to learn much MUCH more of his shady dealings than simply working for the glory of the New Republic just because he once was called up for military service as an Alliance general. Have no doubts he would later rejected this in order to get his hands free once he got done with the Empire. He could've been a trusted friend and a loyal ally to Han Solo, who in turn - logically - could've occupied the position of the Chief of the Republican Intelligence of some kind (like Edgar Hoover - the Chief of FBI) with a rank of General. Also, Han and Leia should've had some more deeply intimate moments than just banal "OKAY, I love you Han" (him responding "I know" that - together with such replies as "don't tell me the odds", calling Threepio "goldenrod" that looked like a rehash of the movies: was it so difficult to invent some original and memorable lines for him to say that would fit his individuality?), maybe show them making love (I mean "making love", not "f'*cking") unparalleled comparing to ordinary human expression in ability to penetrate in each other's souls that the Force (shared by Leia with Luke) would make possible. You made an attempt to show her attachment to him ("she missed Han terribly") but you in no way show us it clearly (when he arrived from his mission, for instance) and all that we have is just expressed using limited range of verbs ("squeezed his hand", "made her face", "lopsided grin"). And the end as for the entire trilogy wasn't so proper, but rather abrupt. In ROTJ we saw all the main protagonists as well as antagonists brought together. But at the end of of the Last Command it's just Luke and Mara and after the final clash with that "Dark Jedi" there were no mention neither of wounded Han, Leia, the twins nor of Republican govt, subsequent events, following the defeat of the Imperial fleet (what happened to it, Pellaeon etc). Overall, it was not a bad try but definitely too insufficient to serve as a basis for the Sequel Trilogy.

NeverarGreat said:

The comics and the movie are two different takes on the character. Different universes. The EU means Expanded Universe, not Different Universe. This is why Lucas specifically forbid writers from delving into the Clone Wars period and tried to make the prequels fit with the EU instead of disregarding it completely. However, since he doesn't have a good grasp of continuity as it is, the effort was rather wasted.

The worst thing about this is that in order to UNDERSTAND a movie, you need to read/watch a bunch of related books, comics, mini-series which is a  supportive role, spin-off, instead of relying just on events being properly unfolded in the original movie/movies that should serve the purpose of exploring the main storyline. And THAT storyline should hold the gravity center of depicting various events - not side projects.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Screw the EU!!!!!! Hope it dies. FOREVER!

Okay, now you're just being silly ...

 ????

For me being an ardent Han/Leia fan (I'm sort of romantic mood, ya know) "The Courtship of Princess Leia" as a crying nonsense is like spit in my face. Zero understanding of personalities of both characters, huge EMOTIONAL inconsistency with their love story arc we saw in ESB and ROTJ (I mean, c'mon, how could Leia, who risked her life to rescue Solo - that dashing scoundrel she fell in love with and who she shared so many ups and downs with - even think of possibility to marry another man. She was made into really disdainful bitch here. And seriously, we're talking about HARRISON FORD! How many women would prefer some polished dude "prince Isolder" over FORD?!)

Another one also regards the EU crap about Solo him "discovering" his noble ancestry. WTF!!! So in order to justify his pretensions to marry Leia (who, remember, confessed her love in the worst possible situation that could ever happen!) some authors decided to bear this out by tying up this to some class-conscious way of thinking. What a shit! Integrity of her character and her strong moral values and principles (of which loyalty to the single man she would choose as her lover is a main one, I suppose) by no means makes this possible:  neither political considerations nor social prejudices was no matter for her to be with Han, be it a simple liaison or a legal marriage. The fact of Solo's ordinary origins even makes their relations even more romantic and sensitive. Screw the EU!!!!!! Hope it dies. FOREVER!

RicOlie_2 said:

 PT technology should have looked less advanced than OT technology. The SE should have given us more advanced displays like Adywan did so that they would be able to use slightly more advanced technology, but it should not have been more advanced than the OT's tech.

Here I disagree. The events of the OT happened in the frontier. The worlds and the living conditions represented either poor material wealth of inhabitants of these worlds or unexplored areas of the galaxy. The technologies that we saw in the OT can be interpreted as purely unimaginative and functional serving just as means to survive. On a greater scale I think the idea behind such visual tech style of the OT was simply to show mechanical nature of Empire (simple triangular-shaped giant but elephantine warships of unvaried design) against the poverty-struck background of the human existence during the time of oppression. Though I think if Lucas had more sophisticated technology in 1977 he would show us more advanced stuff of Coruscant and the like.

As for pre-Empire era, the intention was obviously to show more prospering society of higher cultural, technical level of development with more elegant and civilized elements of the technical craft far surpassing the dark and poverty of the Imperial rule. In contrast to the frontier life in Outer Rim it would be nice and logical to see civilization at its height, to see the capital of the Republic etc, super high-end facilities of bygone age of agricultural and industrial growth (of the civil industry). None other than ROTJ (kill me, but I LOVE the movie!!) director Richard Marquand who was privy to some drafts of Lucas' outline for his prequels as seen back in circa 1983 commented that these stories were about different times, different technology, different sentiments, different people than that we were introduced in the OT. It was not the visual style but the story composition, plot twists, characterization and the scripts that ruined the PT!

Ok, but still any interrogation is the duty of army, its intelligence, not the President of even the Defense Minister (who equivalent Vader used to be to). He ordered to bring them to him personally. The exactly same moment in ESB made me think a lot when he told Lando to bring Leia and the Wookie to his ship. Ok, so Leia was important cause she knew the rendevouz point, but what could be the use of Chewy?

Darth Vader in ROTJ:" Good work, commander. Conduct your search and bring his companions to me". What for? Any ideas. Could that be the reason why the Rebells were not terminated immediately when captured the first time (inside the bunker), and the second time (outside it, just after Leia had been wounded)?

Also, please read this interview with Kasdan:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-man-with-the-golden-pen-lawrence-kasdan-1428935.html

Extract that took my attention:

Q: When you came to write The Empire Strikes Back, had the decision already been made to make it darker than Star Wars, or was that your influence?

A: I think I influenced that, and George was open to it. Over the three Star Wars films, he saw a trajectory. The Empire Strikes Back was the second act and, traditionally, the second act is when things start to go bad. George had made his biggest decision when he hired Irvin Kershner to direct, even though Kershner and I were acting as his tools. When it came to the third act, The Return of the Jedi, which functions as the relief, he chose a different kind of director, Richard Marquand, whose world view was much sunnier than Kershner's.

Ryan McAvoy said:

If it's also true (As is often said) that Marquand didn't have the same clout as Kirsch to rewrite/change things, then ROTJ must be almost undilluted from script to screen and therefore the best!

  Actually if you read "Making of Jedi" carefully you should've noticed some pics of the ROTJ script that clearly show some changes made by Marquand by hand (the dialogue between Luke and Leia). Also Rinzler wrote that Marquand handed over Leia's speech to Mon Mothma in the briefing scene.

I meant " to attach from the computer"

Files with .jpeg tag (pics and the like, to put it simply).

"We" as in "everyone but you" , I guess

Oh, you guess? Hm, got it. It could be difficult to conduct a statistic research, though.

  Most common tools are absent here

...so it's time for software revision I think. Good luck with that!

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

Am I? Didn't know, sorry.

Also, we're lucky we can insert images at all here

"We"? "We" who?

you want the moon.

 Are you serious? The name of the forum is "Feature requests and enhancements", right?

"Also", it's indeed strange to find such common tool absent. 

When I first saw the original Star Wars in a theatre (dubbed on a very high professional level) at the age of 9 here, in Russia, I even wasn’t aware of «the trilogy», in fact I hadn’t a clue of it being titled «Episode 4, A New Hope». That was the time when after dissolution of the USSR and during a short period before it when restrictions falled and variuos western cult movies (Terminator, Rocky, Rembo, Star Wars, 9,5 weeks and many more) flooded back into in the form of bootleg VHS, half-legal viewings in «video saloons» and so on. Then after maybe 8 months all 3 went on TV in a show which aimed at introducing the newest American hits or previously unseen ones. I watched the Original SW the second time with a horrible translation and decided to watched that show again in a week. Could you imagine how I was smashed when they start broadcasting another SW movie and it was the first time I’ve learned that Episode 5 «The Empire Strikes Back» existed??? I was thrilled to see familiar characters again in a comletely different environment but the end was unexpected and literally shocking!!! I couldn’t fall asleep for half of a night -  so I couldn’t  believe the end!!! For about a week I walked dejected till watching that show casually once again and it was a HUGE reliefe to watch Jedi! And the dominant impression weren’t Ewoks, but the Emperor, Jabba and Han’s resque, this huge space battle and the ground forest battle,  Vader’s redemption and seeing his actual face and that was a moment I was awaiting eagerly. While I love all 3 parts, but found myself watching Star Wars and ROTJ more often than ESB.

The interesting thing also does ROTJ reflect the directorial style of Marquand? Many reviews tend to interpret this aspect through the lense of Gary Kurtz’s eyes which I - with the lapse of time - find more and more risky thing to follow. And to the same degree that it turned out in the open media regarding the issue I can’t agree with it. Perhaps there is more of Marquand’s contribution than we’re accustomed to think. I’m sure many of you have read this interview  

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-wars/26133/richard-marquand-interview-return-of-the-jedi-star-wars, that I later came across somewhere on this forum (with zero replies to the thread). Some candid comments on this post by the journalist Jules-Pierre Malartre who made the original interview with Marquand around ’84 also provide deep insights and some food for thoughts: the commentor Nothern Star wrote «he was NEVER replaced as director during production by either the First Assistant Director or the Director of Photography or George Lucas himself (despite what Irvin Kershner stated), he got along extremely well with the actors (one of the main reasons he was hired to begin with), George Lucas did not ghost-direct the film over Marquand's head (he allowed Marquand to pick his own crew and by Marquand's own admission Lucas gave him enormous freedom to largely make the film his way), and any drug-related rumors surrounding Marquand's early demise were entirely scurrilous and without any foundation of truth whatsoever.

James Marquand spent many hours on set during the production of '...Jedi' and saw things close up and first-hand, and I believe his accounts over the scuttlebutt and urban myths that have built up over the last 30 years. By all accounts, Richard Marquand was a thoroughly decent, honorable, and family man who was both a talented director and proficient technician of his craft, and who deserves to rest in peace without his children having to defend his name and professional reputation from nasty and unsubstantiated rumors whispered in dark corners on the internet, 'Return of the Jedi' stands as a testament to Marquand's talent, let that be the final word on his legacy». So, we’re eligible for acknowledgment that the final look and style of Jedi represents these of Marquand not Lucas despite his involvement. Particular features that reflect it mostly concern approach to the photography, camera movement (Alan Hume, Sean Barton) and the general mood that does resemble other Marquand’s works very much (and I liked Eye of the Needle a lot!) 

Also the whole toy-orientated nature of Lucas’ decision to add the Ewoks and leave Han alive as explained by both Kurtz and Ford has been wavered in my eyes and these claims by itself don’t make it more reliable. Let’s not take all that Kurtz and other who opposed Lucas have stated at different times as sacred texts that are not to be debated. There’re no direct evidences to support that sort of pretensions: the ewoks were invented to add Vietkong spirit as the conception of less technologically sophicticated society knocking out more sophisticated one (perhaps reflecting unrealized opportunity to direct Apocalipse Now). Lucas directly adressed this issue by saying, «A lot of people say the films are just an excuse for merchandising: ‘Lucas decided to cash on the teddy bear’. Well, it’s not a great thing to cash in on, because there are lots of teddy bears marketed, so you don’t have anything that’s unique. If I were designing something original as a market item, I could do a lot better.» Could we trust him? I don’t know. Maybe he was unsincere. But after all I personally don’t care what was behind that decision. It worked for me, and I dare to think, for the trilogy as well. Considering myself I have to say this: I was never afflicted with toymania. Maybe cause the whole merchandise (when I was of the age it was targeted) wasn’t available in my country, but even when it became I never wanted a SW toy, a poster, all I wanted were the movies themselves and the books! And speaking of Ewoks-were-thought-out-just-to-sell-the-toys issue I can’t grasp just one thing: were these poor ewoks the only characters designed for sale? Weren’t Solos, Vaders, Lukes etc had been traded extensively by the time? What’s so special about Ewoks? Hasn’t the whole Ewok thing been exaggerated? As Farrar said «And the Ewoks - <...>I if they are part of a good story, you move past that». I like Gary Kurtz’s personality, I read some of his interviews and they show a very very intelligent profound person that he is. He makes a far better impression on me than that Rick McCallum who resembles a chevalier of fortune. I agree a lot with what he says. I think he’s right when he notices that nobody challenges George. But at some point a personal grievance on Lucas or HIS own vision of what direction the SW saga should have moved after his departure has mudded his sense of objectivity. He fails to recognize that during filming of the Jedi even in his absence they had Kasdan who had heated disputes with Lucas who, still, from reading Rinzler didn’t appear as some sort of dictator those days but open for solutions. He misinterprets the fact that Marquand was closer to Lucas‘ vision than Kershner’s or his own and concludes that Marquand was a simple puppet. I don’t think it’s fair to the man who has been long gone and has no ability to answer back though it’s not such a crucial point. Still... let’s not let our personal preferences intervene. Those who claim that Jedi was the beginning of decline that resulted in the prequels miss the whole point. It’s not hard to watch ROTJ and the prequels and note a large gap in a way of development of characters. You may have lots of things you dislike about ROTJ but comparing it with the PT quickly becomes evident that the way the film was made reflects that era, when the view of directing actors, not cartoon or CGI characters, prevailed. At least that’s what stroke my eyes. You may dislike certain plot tweasts or what the characters did or didn’t but you still care of them. Besides there’s a plenty of scenes that have a genuine emotional potential. They resonate with me, feed my soul with warmth. When I have something going wrong in my life or just feeling bad I watch these three originals and it’s like  getting a message that there’s hope, kind of psychotherapy. I can’t say exactly the same of the prequels. According to Kaminsky initial idea of George was to work out general storylines with invited directors interpreting his ideas. This model worked fine with Marquand and Kershner. Too pity he abandoned it later despite the fact that both Marquand and Kershner expressed their wish to direct the prequels. I think it would be the best choise that could possibly be made. Both were familiar with SW universe and I guess could have turned the prequels into something completely different than we had. 

It’s frustrating Marquand died so young. Would be interesting to watch that hardcore sci fi movie he had plans for... And now they both have passed away. 

Talking about what part is «better»: I never felt the need to put one SW movie over the other in the OT since for me the whole thing is a single story, so I never thought of any of these, «this one is good, that one is better and that one is worse» - I just didn’t pay attention to this type of criteria and especially now, with the prequels, I feel that the OT is like a shining star, a homing beacon in a vast sea of desperation seeded by the PT, and to judge in this manner for me is like ruining my whole view and the childhood. People often complain of «bad acting», «poor directing» and «bad scripting» when they don’t like a movie and the most blatant aspect is that the majority of them isn’t professional to talk about it with enough competence. While I agree that the ordinary moviegoer really feels the inner truth or falsehood of storytelling, acting but even then he/she  often confuses totally different things about what he/she likes and dislikes in reality. For example bad acting isn’t synonimous with both bad scripting and bad directing and there several combinations can be made: you can have a bad script but as much as it depends on acting skills actors can try to deliver it as convincing as they’re capable of even if directing is weird though this is an extreme situation and is highly unwelcomed; you can have horrible script, but a director, if he’s competent enough and passionate about his profession, can outbalance the fallacies of writing and shoot at least a more or less decent movie. And lastly even a perfect script and a brilliant directing can not save the picture if acting is awkward. And I’d dare to state that many people couldn’t  tell such a subtle difference - only professionals involved could. As for the rest of us mortals, there’s only single thing that counts, that is: emotional resonance and it’s a very subjective thing. When you read that «the movie is considered the best/worst» then the question is «by who»? By critics? I always wasn’t of a very high opinion of this niche, since we all know that to «professionaly» criticize (i.e. being payed for) is not the same as to create and, besides, frankly, how many names of critics are you aware of and, more importantly, you think will stand test of time? When I read that «majority of fans and critics bla-bla-bla» I always think, «so what?» There’re two ways - either to compel myself to this «major opinion» denying my own feelings  - the sort of behavior I’ve always hated or stay ON MY OWN and you guess what I’m prone to. My own scale is much more important for me than any public opinion. And if all 3 originals - Jedi included - resonate with me, then I love them. And on the opposite side, the prequels don’t resonate on the same level. I don’t care about the characters in them as I do throughout the ENTIRE OT. I don’t pay attention to what Kurtz, Kershner, Carrie, Harrison or whatever else thought or thinks of ROTJ. I like it. That’s the main point. The actors, or producers and directors are doomed always to be critical of themselves, the predecessors and successors and that’s very human and there’s nothing unusual, it’s like generals who always seek to glorify their victories and to remain silent about their fiascos, to emphasize their own significance and to neglect their rivals. Let actors, directors play their games but let’s not follow them in their capriciousness. I found a lot of intimate moments in ROTJ that speak to my heart and make me take with: I liked the scene on a Ewok bridge (Luke&Leia and then Han), Luke vs Vader, enjoyed the performance of Ian (in fact I was terrified when I saw his entrance the first time round and I felt stress during all scenes on DS 2) and the Jabba palace part kept me on tenterhooks up to Falcon and the X-wing blasting off from Tatooin. I don’t mind the Ewoks and frankly don’t even understand problems that people have with them. As for «the other», of course it would be cool if that «other» was not Leia (that seems to be anoying for many) so we could see Luke’s quest for her across the galaxy but the thing is that there’re always a great many other ways to tell a story. SW galaxy offers huge opportunities and Leia being sister is one of them that worked for me and fitted in nicely . It added some melodramatic quality unseen in SW and made it look warmer.

As for «alternative» ROTJ a la Kurtz dark or «bittersweat» version there were so many pros and cons said but I have to say this from a different perspective: let’s accept the idea that OT is a symphony. As a musician myself I can easily recognize in the OT the type of musical compositional structure that is referred to as sonate allegro - the 3-section piece -  ABA. The 1st section (A) is called Exposition where all themes (characters - protagonists and antagonists) are introduced. The 2nd one (B) is called Development section where all the themes introduced in the 1st one are in conflict with each other and usualy is more dramatical («darker» if you wish). The 3rd (A) section is called Recapitulation. In it all original themes return. The most distinct feature of the 3 section development is tonality. Let’s pressume that our Star Wars symphony is in a major key. In Exposition the themes that are introduced are of two kinds - the main subject and the second subject. If the main theme/subject is in a major key (represented by the main chord of a tonality that is formed from the first tone of every scale), then second one is formed from the fifth tone of that scale that is also would be in a major key and at the same time marks the end of the whole 1st section (Death Star 1 destroyed, the Awarding Ceremony). As a rule the 1st section is always tonally stable. Contrary to that the 2nd section is tonally unstable and mostly deals with various complex transformations of the original themes with numerous tonal deviations (characters evolve, suffer, struggle - Luke encounters Vader, losed his arm, Leia reveals her love to Han but immediately loses him). One of these deviations (reunion of the remaining group at the rendezvous point) leads to the start of the 3rd section where all themes return in the main major key - the main tonality. Here the main and the second themes are resumed and although there’s also a room for conflict but the dominating mood and thematical elements resemble those of the 1st act (Death Star 2, Tatooin, aliens, even the very first frame with the bilge of a Star Destroyer passing above the surface of a planet - not Tatooin, but Endor this time) and contrary to dramatic collisions of the middle act all twists and turns that were initiated get resolution. The finale of the whole 3-section piece is, thereby, major, but as opposed to the 1st part both the main and the second themes are in the same key (defined by the chord that is formed from the 1st tone and is called tonic) thus delivering uplifting, triumphant finale. The major requirement for this type of compositional structure as you could possibly notice is symmetry of its architechtonics. Let’s put aside how «great» would be or wouldn’t ROTJ if the model proposed by Kurtz was accepted. The problem was not about merits of the ROTJ but the whole trilogy in itself. The bittersweat ending would obviously ruin that symmetry and I’m not talking about huge psychological impact on  psychology of the viewers (me included) when one of the main characters (and I suppose the one many watch Star Wars OT for) dies, the girl he loved is left alone without him and her dear friend who «wanders off»: such partition of the ways of the main characters would create a void in the hearts of many people, but to me it would look like «bittersilly» and grotesque, completely out of place even if to take into account the 3rd trilogy that was supossed to be done back then. It would be ok if ROTJ was a single movie, but in the context of trilogy as it had been carried out by the beginning of the filming of ROTJ it looked utterly absurd. If you wanted to kill Han, you should’ve done it in ESB otherwise leave him alive and happy. I see the disturbing trend that the more a movie is «darker» and «unexpected» the more it’s considered «better» and vice versa. I disagree. The Original Star Wars set up a tone of optimism not pessimism of «dark» or «bittersweat» endings. I don’t support the notion that the creator should kowtow the audience, but in this case the filmmakers should’ve considered what audiences were expecting. But even judging from formal viewpoint that I covered above the «bittersweat» finale was inappropriate. Sorry, Gary Kurtz, you missed your chance to kill Solo, crown Leia as «the Queen of her people», and make Luke rove in every land. These ideas were from much earlier treatments that had seen its days. They even hadn’t been written in any of Jedi drafts. I agree with Kershner what he hated about American movies all of them having happy endings as opposed to european movies but again many seem to forget that Star Wars is a fairly tail, not a life drama. Fairy tails have happy endings, not «bittersweat» ones.  And, seriously, ESB served perfectly as the MIDDLE act of the story! The conclusion should be and was light. If Kershner and Kurtz ideas won then we’d have ESB-2, not only Han dead but Vader unmasked ant other such «elaborate» decisions. 

Her facial mobility reacting to Han wishing Lando good luck looked exceptionally «astounding» (if not indifferent). Now as for the third image, according to the script «Leia, startled, looks up at Han, surprise changing to admiration». Is this how she could bore «suprise changing to admiration»? She thought of ROTJ as of the weakest installment. Ok, but had you personally done all that was humanly possible not to make it look in your eyes as «the weakest»? What was that? Had you just doped that moment? Who was to blame  - Richard Marquand or you?

Concidering Harrison, he’s been my fav since SW and I saw nearly all of his movies but the more I learn about his attitude to SW the more I feel really disappointed about him as a person: it shows up him being too arrogant and getting ill with superiority complex. There’s so much said on the subject that I feel no need to go through it, however strange that he called Han Solo «a thin character» while (1) he showed such a passion about him when filming Empire (2) he didn’t call Indy the same and, frankly, taking into account adventurous nature of both and as well as resemblance between them what was so shockingly «profound» about Indiana Jones? I guess it was the fact that Ford was the single main star in Indiana and Blade Runner. He desperately wanted Han Solo to die but he didn’t expressed the same wish about Indy. He complained about how Lucas was predisposed to happy endings, but has he ever been concerned about too happy endings of Indiana films? And as far as I know the majority of his movies do have happy endings (with a few exceptions). That’s what happens with human psychology: when he/she is being praised excessively, he/she looses some basic human virtues such as simplicity, open-heartedness etc hence why Harrison «didn’t take» at Richard because, you know, «he’s a star» (sarcasm intended) and Richard was closer to him on an age scale unlike Kersh plus less acknowledged.

 I read and heared whimper so many times that Jedi «sucks» because «Ford is on autopilot», «weak line of Han and Leia». Now, to be clear, I disagree with that completely. Even if Ford indeed was «on autopilot» that in no way hurt my perception of the movie. I like how Han/Leia stuff was treated: I think the climax of their story had already been placed in Empire and after the Kiss it became obvious that their intense feuds was over and their relations getting warmer and warmer (more mature to put it in other words). So all that could be needed to tell us about them was told in ESB. Some comments and reviews I’ve come across call their part in ROTJ «passive» but in my opinion it was perfect for two reasons: (1) the focus of the SW trilogy was and had to be on Luke’s story and even more so it had to be in the final installment (2) to have them behaving in ROTJ exactly like in the previous two along the established stereotype a la «Rhett Butler - Scarlett O’Hara» would look inconsistent with the emotional experience they had gone through before: characters should evolve not to stick to the same sort of thing. Carrie herself got tired of «a space bitch image» and asked for more feminine elements. So, regardless of Harrison’s tired mood the streamline from «love/hate» to «loving couple» was proceeded wonderfully going a long way from this  through this  to this . Besides, the novelization of Jedi reads that lodging in carbon had consequences to his state of mind: it forced him to rethink his priorities and reject his mercenary instincts after he realized that other people were ready to die for him. And the Han Solo of Jedi didn’t look like «nincompoop» for me, several scenes like those when they meet the ewoks, and his «conversation» with Threepio after «the bedtime story» as well as his actions during the battle still showed his roguishness but that of other sort. And Han Solo-the leader of Alliance Commandos  - isn’t it cool? What I noticed, however, about Ford’s delivery of his «thin» character that stroked me, was he looked like an idiot trying to express his dumfound reaction the moment they were captured by the Ewoks and the one after the Imperials ran out from the bunker. Who told him to utilize such a mimic? I thought a lot and all of sudden I had a hunch! INDIANA JONES?! Please, confirm or deny this, since I warched Indy original trilogy 10 years ago but did he used this kind of facial expression there? If yes then he introduced some Indy features to the character of Solo and merged them into one. Not that wise. Now, speaking of responsibility of Lucas and Kasdan (not speaking of Marquand) them diminishing Harrison’s character  how about this: «Harrison used to say, ‘Give me as few lines as possible; I don’t want any lines’. He was never the one to say, ‘I want my part to be bigger’»(Lucas)? This answers it all. Well, now our Mister Big Star got bothered with the whole franchise. Perhaps, because of «thin» Han Solo and «thick» Indiana Jones. And look, I understand you were finished but could you at least prove your professional qualification by getting rid of such creepy mimic? Also thank you, Harrison and  Alec, for calling my childhood piece of shit, being filled with a handful of «childish banalities» etc.