Sign In

Darabount rips Lucas over Indy IV script — Page 3

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman
Guy,

Which is the truth. If Lucas did go back and remaster the theatrical version, I'd bet everything I owned that the complaining wouldn't stop...and you know I'm right....


Well, it depends on a lot of things. But think that if he would put his full and considerable resources to work, then he could please ALMOST everybody.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Ah, but what would be good enough? We never specified, remember? Since the theforce.net crowd has been bombarded with technical details for a year and it hasn't made a dent, let's just call it "whatever the fuck Criterion would do, that was good enough for these movies...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Criterion_Collection_releases
Author
Time
"Jumpman, putting aside what you and I think of the PT movies, can you honestly say to me that Lucas reputation as a filmaker is better or worse then it was before 1999? Please answer Yes or No."

Dude, turn your Bill O'Reilly off!!

And an unfortunate reality is (and I'm not happy about it) that it doesn't really matter what his reputation is. He doesn't really need one anymore, he's got a bank balance so big it'd give the Hindenberg penis envy.

Gaw... there are days I'd love to be George Lucas. I'd get away with just about anything!

"Some people just think his "my vision" line is bullshit."

I didn't at first. I started to question it when it changed more often than his shirt did.

VADER: Let me look on you with my own eyes...

LUKE: Dad, where are your eyebrows?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WO_S6UgkQk0
Author
Time
"Every filmaker who makes these summer blockbusters today forgets what made the Spielberg/Lucas era movies great: Characters. I talked about this in an earlier post, but the CG has ruined the summer blockbuster, because it is the #1 focus by every filmaker, and even Lucas fell into that trap with the PT."

That's a matter of opinion, not fact....especially when there are plenty of fans/critics who see plenty of character and plenty of story(more than the Original Trilogy) in the Prequels.



Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
Hah, there wasn't even a story to find in the prequel trilogy. It was merely one big long series of events. I suppose you could say Menace had a story, but the other two movies and the prequel trilogy as a whole entity did not.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
What i don't understand is:

If Paramount is paying for the movie...
If Frank Darabont was writing the screenplay...
If Steven Speilberg is directing it

Then what is the big deal about Lucas anyway? I don't even think he is the producer, just executive producer, someone else will be actually managing the daily production chores. Lucas' importance just seems arbitrary.

Zombie, Paramount is most likely handling the advertisement and distribution of the movie, while Lucas, as executive producer, would be providing the funding.

You know the golden rule: the one who has the gold makes the rules.

For those who'd like to go directly to the story source:
http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2007-04-20

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Hah, there wasn't even a story to find in the prequel trilogy. It was merely one big long series of events. I suppose you could say Menace had a story, but the other two movies and the prequel trilogy as a whole entity did not.



Oh there was a story there, just not a great one. And not handled too well. Things that were supposed to be surprises just *weren't*. Was ANYONE surprised when Palpatine and Sidious were 'revealed' to be the same guy??? Talk about a shambles!
VADER: Let me look on you with my own eyes...

LUKE: Dad, where are your eyebrows?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WO_S6UgkQk0
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Jumpman


That's a matter of opinion, not fact....especially when there are plenty of fans/critics who see plenty of character and plenty of story(more than the Original Trilogy) in the Prequels.



Oh yeah, TPM was ALL about the characters!!! Jar Jar Binks who plays such a huge role in the saga gets more time then ObiWan Kenobi? Do you know why? Because he was the first digital character, and Lucas wanted to show off the technology. Just watch TPM Documentary when Lucas is in the pre-production stages and says point blank about this character Jar Jar, "Jar Jar is the key to the whole thing." He thought Jar Jar would wow people cause he was the first CGI character, but totally forgot to make him remotely interesting or have any depth that is relevant to the saga, he is a bumbling fool who ruins almost every scene he is in, and was SUPPOSE to be funny, but turned out to be anything but.

Meanwhile the key relationship of the whole Saga now, Anakin & Kenobi, takes a back seat til AOTC, and then they are in the movie together for the first 15 minutes, and then the relationship isn't even given any detail til ROTS, when it is too late by then. Anakin/Kenobi relationship should have been fully explored for 3 movies so we actually give a shit when they fight in ROTS, so you can actually care that they are trying to kill each other, but cause Lucas took so long to show their friendship, it just looked like 2 guys going at on Mustafar. Just think of Han/Luke fighting on Mustafar, and then think of Obiwan/Anakin fighting and tell me which one would be more tragic?
Author
Time
^ 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.
Author
Time
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.

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
Well, what will inevitably happen is that the Indy fanbase will love it, then eventually find a zillion thing to hate about it. Just like how each installment of the PT was. Now Im beginning to realize that the PT is the absolutely, soul-wrenching, worst film in human existence, now and thousands of years into the future. Indy 4 will be the fourth worst made film ever made for all time. Period.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: generalfrevious
Well, what will inevitably happen is that the Indy fanbase will love it, then eventually find a zillion thing to hate about it. Just like how each installment of the PT was. Now Im beginning to realize that the PT is the absolutely, soul-wrenching, worst film in human existence, now and thousands of years into the future. Indy 4 will be the fourth worst made film ever made for all time. Period.


Its not apt to compare them like that. Theres no common crew except Lucas and he is mostly hands off, aside from selecting the story. If Lucas came up with the PT story, had Speilberg shoot it, Koepp write it, Kahn edit it and Kaminski shoot it, it would have been three of the greatest films since the original Star Wars. Its two completely different set of variables.

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
Cassidy, I am going to agree with you that Indy IV won't suck to fans who enjoy the sequels. I am one who thinks the sequels are entertaining, but have no replay value, and that is why Indy IV to me will be a good renter one night, and thats it. I just can't see Indy IV being another TPM or AOTC.

There are many reasons why Indy IV will be better then any PT movies:

1. Spielberg is directing it, and he rarely puts out duds. Not all his movies are great, but he doesn't just put out some shit movie unless the story is bad. Example, Jurassic Park II, its not a bad movie, its just the story is so outrageous once they get to America with the Dinosaurs, it turns into Godzilla.

2. Indiana Jones movies were never made for kids like ROTJ and the PT tried to go after. There won't be as much kiddy shit in an Indy movie cause Lucas isn't going after that market. There won't be Jar Jar or the Ewoks, cause Indy movies are targeted towards teenagers, like SW & ESB were.

3. Lucas isn't financing this movie like he does with SW, so he is not constantly thinking, "How many people will I get in the theater if I do this or that?" He purposely made TPM for 5 year olds in some respects because he wanted to get a whole new generation of fans in case the OT fans grew up and didn't care, I think he knows that the main demographic for Indy fans, will be mainly Indy fans from 81-89.

Author
Time
Oh, I bet Lucas would have loved to totally redo every special effect that currently makes the original Indy movies seem dated.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Oh, I bet Lucas would have loved to totally redo every special effect that currently makes the original Indy movies seem dated.


Well the 2004 DVD erased reflections and revealing mechanical stunt devices--so i guess the film must be pretty air-tight otherwise (i would agree it is).

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
I personally think the special effects look great most of the time, but I'm sure that some of the scenes that used models and such aren't up to George Lucas' current tastes. If I had my way, I'd actually make any new Indy movie with old fashioned special effects only (so it can match the coolness of the previous ones).

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
I think Indy 4 is gonna be great. I have faith in Spielberg. Also, it's going to be a very different animal from the other 3, just because Indy is a way older character and the post-nuclear 1950s is a very different setting for a movie than 1936.