Anchorhead said:
Mavericks said:
Anchorhead, "in a nutshell" doesn't equivalent to "accurate", "comprehensive".
It certainly does. Marquand made a handful of films, only one of which was at Pinewood. On that film, he was nothing more than a surrogate for Lucas. The film doesn't have Marquand's touch, it has Lucas'. Which is the very reason it fits with the PT instead of the OT. Lucas was in charge. It reeks of Lucas and his complete disconnect with the audience, the characters, and the story itself.
Very well. Now, this type of utterance sums up the whole anti-ROTJ position. Here're several major aspects considering the people who subscribe to this point of view:
1. Unfortunately, these people often don't realize that this is just the point of view, i.e., their own personal preferences. This is perfectly unwelcomed and regrettable. If you dislike ROTJ, I adore you, but please don't give it the flesh of one more "accepted truth", there're too many of them these days, agree?
2. In the science of historiography when working with eye witnesses' accounts there's a special term "lies as an eyewitness": it means that a person telling about an event after many years of its original occurrence, in fact, says not what he saw actually, but "from the certain point of view", affected by an intensive ideological freak-out in the following period of time. So's the human psychology. An every single human subconsciously links to mob thinking, seeks to be a sheepl and the degree to which his thinking is affected by his nature depends on his developed sense of independent worldview, maturity of his inner culture. Now, a rhetoric question, how big is a part of people that claim disliking ROTJ, dislikes it actually, or liked it prior to learning "the opinion of majority" and how big is a part of people who have disliked it always actually? Difficult to say, isn't it? There weren't any study on that and it would be a very hard one to conduct, I guess.
3. This point of view tends to oversimplify actual course of events: the facts that don't fit it are being ignored, the ones that seem to support it are being extruded. "Making of Jedi" provides enough food for thoughts. The undeniable fact is that indeed Lucas was involved more that in a previous film. Also the undeniable is that we feel Lucas approach here more distinctly. I don't want to repeat myself on what I wrote earlier on Marquand's role in my posts above, please, if you're interested in a constructive debate, read it again, since what could be written here has already being addressed there. The opinions of Richard on the part of the cast and crew differed from negative ones to positive. What were the reasons behind that is another separate and interesting subject of study, but, sadly, it's untouched in Rinzler's book. He failed to deliver exhaustive account of the director's work on set and that's why I'm not completely satisfied with it. For his previous one he used Arnold that I feel covered Kersh's methods more carefully, more in depth. I didn't read Preecher, but since Rinzler used his account too, I can judge that Preecher did the job slightly worse than Arnold. And here's the main point: when speaking of Kersh, in spite of many other scenes that found its depiction in Rinzler's book, the majority of praises from the journalists and "fans" comes from reading the transcript of his directing the Carbon Freeze scene that, covering his actions step by step, became available by a twist of fortune. It's a pity that nobody managed to attach wireless mic to Marquand's throat hence is insufficient amount of info to draw a picture of him on the set that, paradoxically, the book containing near 800 pages of printed and footage material wasn't able to put right.
But even with this flaws the book doesn't lead to a categoric conclusion that Marquand was Lucas' "surrogate". The fact that his taste was closer to Lucas' than Kershner's which he expressed himself in an interview (that is, he liked the original SW movie more that Empire) has raised the misconception among admirers of Empire and Kershner's "style" that Marquand was merely "a puppet of Lucas". These people often forget that in planning overall structure of the tonal deal of the whole trilogy the persons who called all the shots were Lucas and Kasdan. It was Kasdan who determined the mood both of Empire and "Jedi" prior to hiring Kershner and Marquand, that both were hands of Lucas and the real difference (of course, apart from their personal and professional philosophy difference) was that Kershner wasn't limited by Lucas' requirements of the budget and timeline, while Marquand was and that Kershner asked for complete independence while Marquand layed the assistance for the part of Lucas down as a condition . And somehow I doubt that, contrary to some fanboys' cries, he felt being "a puppet".
Additionally, just to mention: the pure professional blamestorming of this and any other movie could be carried on on a propriate level by other professionals - writers and filmmakers. If it has its structural flaws then they're not what angry fans point out to and an average person can't even it explain in the way other than "I dislike this, I like that". So do I.
4. The degree to which one is adhered to a theory of "Marquand as a puppet of evil Lucas" is determined by whether one likes or not ROTJ, not by a desire to learn the facts, be it hidden or open for public.
To be honest I don't care that much about what used to happen behind the scenes. I even think that this knowledge kills the initial freshness of watching experience and distorts in some ways an average viewer's perception. I myself went through waving of my sympathies towards the whole trilogy and now I just watch it as naturally as I can, considering me becoming a tough cynic in the course of the years. I love A new Hope. I love Empire. I love Jedi. That's why I'm not "a fan" of Jedi. I think there're many of us who love all 3. Hell, that's why the persons who created this site called it Original Trilogy, not Duology.
5. Now here we have two statements: A It reeks of Lucas and his complete disconnect with the audience, the characters, and the story itself. and B I get it, you're a fan of Return.
If it "reeks" complete disconnect then how did I manage to became "a fan of Jedi"? Statement A contradicts statement B in your logic. Or you will claim that I'm "a wrong fan"? Or that it's just me? Both would be wrong I'm sure and inappropriate as obviously there're many "Jedi fans" out there. And if, according to you, "PT fits OT" which sounds completely nerdish, then how it became that I didn't notice that? I clearly feel the distinction. Again would you risk to claim that I'm alone? I think, you wouldn't. That's why the kind of assumptions you're using rests on a shaky ground.
I can't image there is a single person who follows films, collects films, loves films, makes films, or works in the film industry who - when they hear Pinewood Studios - doesn't automatically think of James Bond.
Well, I don't know what a person you talking about but as for me I don't find the whole Bond franchise so entertaining to care about it. Is it a public sin? ) Besides, I'm not the part of anglosphere culturally and hmm geographically so I'm not affected by knowledge of who of its creative minds lives/creatively acts where. Basically I dig info on persons which were/are involved in projects I like. As the James Bond doesn't belong to my field of cinematic interest I don't feel urgent need to learn smith more. But, nevertheless, aside from my personal preferences I acknowledge an importance of certain people of the industry objectively, so definitely I'm not against paying homage to some of them.
Aside from that, the Alien films, Superman films, Batman films (Burton and Nolan), Bourne, Harry Potter, Doctor Who, and way too many more to name.
Very good.
I get it, you're a fan of Return.
No, you're wrong. As I've made it clear in the other thread on ROTJ I'm "a fan" of the entire Original Trilogy. I can't divide it on a basis of what's "worst" and what's "best. Moreover, before I went to the vast expanses of Internet I even didn't know that Empire was "considered the best by..." and that ROTJ "sucks". I built my appraisal not on fighting opinions but on my own watching experience isolated from outer influences. There're two aspects - subjective and objective: regarding the former I love SW, regarding the latter I'm able to apply my critical scrutiny and with the wisdom of hindsight find flaws in all 3 parts. Even in Empire I could name some scenes that in my opinion could be executed in a more subtle way, but overall I'm able to move past these misgivings and, overcoming my adult skepticism enjoy all 3. I don't think I'm alone.
And the other thing, why're you trying to attach labels to other persons right from the start? I may be "a fan" of nothing, just happened to express my view.
there should be a Gerald Scarfe stage before there is a Marquand stage.
Absolutely. And if it were "along with" or "after" would it cause a cognitive dissonance?
