Originally posted by: TheCassidy
^ Mm-hmm. Like I've said countless time, the Star Wars films are all about the SFX informing the story, whereas with most films the story informs the SFX.
Story does not equal SFX, which is something I'm afraid Lucas understands a lot less than someone like Spielberg. The reason Star Wars and Jaws (and Raiders to a lesser extent) are so good is that the filmmakers weren't comfortable, things were constantly going wrong and they were forced to improvise. Lucas was in a position of great influence and wealth when the Prequels were made, so there wasn't that voice in his head going, "I can't do this, it's going to cost too much," which is never a bad thing.
Proof of my theory? What does the majority prefer - Star Wars with Jabba or Star Wars sans Jabba?
What I'm getting to is that this is why all of this nonsense about Indiana Jones IV and the Potential of Suck is unfounded.
I know I'm not well liked around these parts, I can deal with it - just hear me out and consider what I'm about to say before blacklisting me again.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present my case on why Indiana Jones IV and the Prequels could not be more dissimilar.
1) Lucas is the bank and the story "author," and not in a position of putting his clever wit all over the script.
2) Spielberg is the Director, a man Lucas calls, "My Director," which means he will back off when it comes to major creative decisions.
3) The editing of the Prequels, by Ben Burtt and George Lucas sucked. Michael Kahn is editing Indiana Jones IV.
4) The cinematography, Kaminski, shot Saving Private Ryan and many other spectacular looking films. Just imagine that!
5) David Koepp wrote what matters - the script. The dialogue, the pacing, the character arcs...EVERYTHING that matters comes from him.
6) Shia "Son of Indy" LeBouef has been seen as controversial. Indy has a son? What? Now go and watch War of the Worlds and see what a touching Father and Son relationship Koepp crafted in the middle of all those SFX and explosions. The potential for a really touching story that matters is there. Honestly.
I have high optimistic hope for this film and I at least hope that some of my points are impressed upon one person. Thanks.
Very well made points. I've said it before that the prequels and Lucas' current talents don't really have the impact that some fear. But i think the dread with regards to Indy IV is that it seems so superfluous--Crusade was a terrific capper to the franchise, i great way to say goodbye, and really does feel like "the end." I'm interested in seeing what they do with Indy IV, but i can't help but feel like even if it is as good as it can possibly be that it still is somehow cheapening the series. I am psyched about the crew though--Speilberg has a very well-honed entourage and knows how to tell a character-driven action film; if the script was a piece of shit, something that Lucas would have come up with, Speilberg would simply say "George this script is unconvincing, lets re-write it." And he's done that before, so its not like Speilberg is at the mercy of Lucas because Speilberg doesn't have to operate like that.
But there is reason to be suspicious. I mean Temple of Doom had pretty good writing and directing, and the actors were all talented but people seem to regard it as a weak film (i personally love it), and while Crusade nailed down the bouncy humor and fundamental character-centric view of Raiders it basically re-treaded the exact same territory and relied too much on jokes. I guess to some who loved Raiders as a brilliant adventure film, anything tacked on seems to be cheap. I recently watched Raiders last week after not having seen it in a good three or four years and was amazed at how much of a terrific character film it is--the entire first hour is just character development and intrigue and i found this the best part of the film, simply for the terrific period atmosphere and interesting characters. I also forgot how much Indiana Jones had changed--his conception in this film is pure Bogart, he's the dirty drunk at the bar that sleeps with women and shoots people in the back if he has to; he got cleaned up a lot since kids fell in love with the film. Kasdan just gave Raiders such heavy characterisation and it harks back to the 30's character pieces so much--the film is more like Casablanca crossed with Treasure of the Sierra Madre--its only in the chase scenes in the last forty minutes that the fast-paced serial formula really takes over.