ROTJ is the best Star Wars film... discuss! — Page 23

deepanddark20 said:

And for those who insist that it makes no sense to love Jedi but hate the prequels, get ready for this: I think the prequels are a suckfest from episode I all the way through episode 3.

This makes perfect sense simply because of the OT characters are better then the PT characters.

I actually like the story the PT tells, and think it expands the OT story much more and gives it more depth.  But I just don't care for the characters in the PT (mostly Anakin & Padme), so that pretty much ruins any enjoyment of the movies.

ROTJ is not as great as SW & Empire, but it still has Luke, Leia and Han, and I enjoy following those characters adventures for another 2 hours to tie up the trilogy. 

When I watch the PT, I almost watching it for the story simply because I loved the OT so much, but can't stomach any characters (although I do like Obiwan played by Ewan McGregor.)  But Anakin & Padme are the stars of the PT, and when you get to the end of ROTS, I am supposed to feel sad for their tragic fates as Padme dies and Anakin is placed in an iron lung, and I felt absolutely nothing towards either of them.  Whereas in the OT, when Han goes into Carbonite and you see Leia's face, you feel for those characters and their situation.

With all the debate about CGI vs Real Locations, Jar Jar, and how much politics should have been in the PT, the real problem for me will always be the characters, because I honestly don't give a rat's ass about their fates.

deepanddark20 said:

When I complain about the acting/dialogue in the prequels and someone responds by saying "well c'mon, the Star Wars saga never had great acting/dialogue", I want to rip my teeth out.

CO said:

deepanddark20 said:

And for those who insist that it makes no sense to love Jedi but hate the prequels, get ready for this: I think the prequels are a suckfest from episode I all the way through episode 3.

This makes perfect sense simply because of the OT characters are better then the PT characters.

I actually like the story the PT tells, and think it expands the OT story much more and gives it more depth.  But I just don't care for the characters in the PT (mostly Anakin & Padme), so that pretty much ruins any enjoyment of the movies.

ROTJ is not as great as SW & Empire, but it still has Luke, Leia and Han, and I enjoy following those characters adventures for another 2 hours to tie up the trilogy. 

When I watch the PT, I almost watching it for the story simply because I loved the OT so much, but can't stomach any characters (although I do like Obiwan played by Ewan McGregor.)  But Anakin & Padme are the stars of the PT, and when you get to the end of ROTS, I am supposed to feel sad for their tragic fates as Padme dies and Anakin is placed in an iron lung, and I felt absolutely nothing towards either of them.  Whereas in the OT, when Han goes into Carbonite and you see Leia's face, you feel for those characters and their situation.

With all the debate about CGI vs Real Locations, Jar Jar, and how much politics should have been in the PT, the real problem for me will always be the characters, because I honestly don't give a rat's ass about their fates.

  ^This and that the story doesn't make sense in the PT in key areas.

For me the only thing that stops the PT from being as watchable as ROTJ or stops ROTJ being as awful as the PT are the characters.

Yoda, Ben, Han, Leia are a bit asleep at the wheel Fett need not be there and is abused but Lando, Chewie, the Droids, The Emperor are fine Jabba is fun and Mark really flies as Luke.

If Vader is less than his ESB self it's mostly justified by his character arc and even minor characters like Bib Fortuna are more real feeling than that cone headed Jedi guy in the PT

In terms of plot ingredients Jedi is warmed up left overs at best where as the central idea of the emperor working both sides of a war is kind of smart and was worthy of three films. Just perhaps three films where creepy sex looks and Eremikophobia were not major features ;-D

The Luke-Vader-Emperor scenes in ROTJ are truly underrated. Vader's redemption makes me cry every time.

I couldn’t decide where it would be better to post this - in a special thread dedicated to Rinzler’s Making of Jedi or in this one but after long thinking decided to post here. Sorry for it being so lengthy, I’ll try to put in a more readable way by dividing it by shorter pieces.

Just finished reading of Rinzler and have mixed feelings. When I turned the last page I got depressed about what was there. And the major part of my frustration regards the figure of Richard Marquand and the swing of things on the set he got involved in. I really felt compassion to the guy. First of all some of rumors that were circulating over the years («was indifferent to Star Wars, didn’t understand the characters» and so on) turned out to be incorrect: he really WAS a SW fan and really wanted to direct the movie, he even called himself Lucas after being told that there was other candidate! The whole issue of his presence and the interaction with the cast and crew seems now to be a matter of pure psychology and not that of directorial mastery. I’m gonna expand this.

It was tough to get on with directing for George for it’s obvious and well-established his background has always been technology and visual aspects. Someone had shoulder the burden.

They label Marquand «inexperienced», having «low-resumed» list, however my impression from reading the book was more complexed. Certain things that occured while filiming were later interpreted in a oversimplified, far-fetched way. Irvin Kershner was quoted most frequantly on the occasion as reportedly saying that his assistant together with George did almost all job and Marquand didn’t get on with actors very well. This quote appears here and there on the Internet and so often that I for a moment got very suspicious about the origin thinking whether it was fake. Now I have to admit I was wrong, the source is Shock Cinema #24, I ordered the issue and still waiting to go through the complete interview. It’s sad that of the directors of the SW movies Kershner and Lucas gained the lion’s share of attention  while Richard still continues to dwell in obscurity. To my mind the godlike approach towards Irvin Kershner looks quite unnatural and superfluous contrary to dismissive one that comes in with Marquand even if Kershner did deserve such panegyric. Surely Kershner was extremely gifted but to make a cult of him is madness. It shows up with even more sharpness especially if we do consider that in Jedi Marquand was under much less favorable conditions than Kersh. First of all (but not the least) it was Lucas’ budget requirement to stay within it - something that wasn’t the key factor when Kersh was directing. Perhaps, human factor of his reputation as George’s mentor, an acknowledged master and his charisma sort of intimidated Lucas preventing the latter from active intervention in the set’s work. Read «Making of Empire» where Lucas sanctioned almost all decisions made by Kersh.

Now what interested me much was why he wasn’t to direct Jedi too? It turned out Lucas offered this but Kersh himself got out. The reasons he listed seems contradicting to me:

• It took too long and was too exhausting both physically and emotionally

• He felt doing two for George would be too much and he didn’t wish to be «an employee of Lucas» (Wow, interesting, isn’t it? He considered Lucas a very creative and adored his earlier work, so why in the name of art and talent not to help him more than once? Eventually, he directed not for «thank you» but for being paid/gyven credits and I doubt that doing Empire didn’t result in his bank account increase)
• He didn’t want
• He didn’t believe the script

Considering the last one, what is «didn’t believe the script»? He only mentioned some early draft. Nevertherless, rough and terrible Brackett’s draft of ESB didn’t look to be an obstacle that would force him to exit the project. Rough draft always are just preparatory to be brought into refinement at later stages. Anyway, either you have to choose one credible explanation of your reasons or just say «I got tired», or «SW was a crap» and the like, not all in one. This, however, didn’t stop him from  criricizing Marquand later. Any crititicism is welcomed and Marquand should be criticized in the same way as Kershner and any other pro. However, one should avoid formalistic approach and should always look for what was behind. It’s worth reconstructing the actual course of events affecting Lucas’ decision to choose a new director for Jedi apart his quarrel with DGA. Kershner was a superb old pro, but his approach was too slow as for meeting a schedule. Empire was way beyond the preplanned shooting timeline and this caused catastrophic financial consequences. According to Kershner Lucas approached him with the suggestion to direct the next installment during the period of principal photography when probably he didn’t expect such troubles that occured closer to the end of it. So by the time of post-production George firmly decided Kershner would NOT be asked to reprise his duties in the third chapter. He was determined not to cross the line again. And here’s where paradox pops up: you have either to commit yourself to the art, ignoring financial «banalities» and with all the suffering make the piece of art OR restrict yourself by fiscal matters. We really can’t be out of dilemma of what is better and blame Lucas either. 

Yes, Marquand was not of the same class as Kershner was. «You take a director who’d only done Eye of the Needle, still a young guy who came out of TV...Kersh was an old pro, Kersh just said, ‘been there, done that. I know what to do. And if I don’t understand the visual effects, T’ve got these guys at ILM» (Jim Bloom). Well, first of all Kersh wasn’t and didn’t feel being under pressure. He requested a full freedom and got it. The second, Bloom fails to recognize George’s own flaws of him being a director and the fact that in the sence of pure directing, i.e. actual working with actors in the field of classical dramaturgy his own experience was close to zero that he admitted himself («I’ve never really liked directing»: if you DON’T like doing something, you CAN NOT be a great at that) and knowing all this, I feel that the final look of some of his earlier movies aside of his beloved editing owed to his co-writers (take a look to writing credits of American Grafitti - there were somehow two other writers and according to Kaminsky the final draft of ANH was polished by Lucas’ friends - Kaminsky mentions their names that I don’t recall), assitants and Garry Kurtz, who wasn’t just producer in a mercenary meaning of the word but sort of DA. The third, did Bloom or anyone express openly such an opinion to Lucas or was ILM (and Lucasfilm) even back then a bunch of «yes-men»? So brave are you when the time has passed, huh? Meanwhile, despite the fact that Marquand was «young» (he was older than George by the way) he had MUCH MORE experience (and what’s far more important  - the passion) with directing actors, he called himself «an actors’ director». Could you recall George saying such kind of things? The young age and talent aren’t mutually excluding notions, so what’s wrong with giving directing of SW to a young man? Did they forget how young and inexperienced they all were on the set of the original? Why  nobody of them said exactly the same about George? It looks like an attempt to get Lucas off and put Marquand in the wrong. I watched Eye of the Needle, Jagged Edge and Until September. Watch them too and you’ll understand that Marquand could be awesome, very theatric, profound, romantic and charming and also to introduce much of suspense. And it’s not about how many movies you’ve made but what movies you’ve made. What’s interessting, according to popular beliefs Marquand all but was supressed by George. But as it turns out, initially George desperately wanted to diminish his involvement to minimal possible extent thus gaining opportunity for spending more time with his kids and wife. There’s certain bit of truth that Marquand’s own part was overshadowed by Lucas’ presence, however this was an open secret and later would be given distorted interpretation that grew to be an urban myth. Perhaps the following can explain it all: «we had been meeting daily -<...>, but I had warned him that was the way I wanted to work. I just said,‘Look, George, if I am going to do this properly, you’ve got to give me your time’,<...>you’ve got to be there<...>,you wrote this goddamn thing, so let’s get it right». Perhaps for Marquand, who wasn’t experienced with the visual effects and all that nosh, it was something quite natural and desirable, one that he didn’t look on as «restriction of freedom» and it were biased media and ESB/Kershner’s/Kurtz’s fanboys who’d  demonize the whole thing long after Jedi came out. There’re many things about Lucas’ writing/directing approach I don’t like and there’re also much I agree with Kurtz, but not on Jedi&Marquand matter: I think all we have read the interview where he says that Lucas reportedly was dissatisfied with Kershner in that that he was unable to push around him and impose his will - that’s where this urban myth descended from. Now, when we got our hands on Rinzler’s «Making of ESB» we see that contrary to that Lucas wasn’t intervening and hadn’t any problems with Kersh at all otherwise the latter wouldn’t leave his such a positibe feedback of working with Lucas’ producing capabilities. And if there had ever been some disagreement then it was merely of constructive nature. In fact when Marquand called Kershner the latter said «Lucas will leave you alone, more than any producer you’ve ever worked with» - so that’s what Kershner really thought of work with Lucas, not just what Kurtz said.  Besides, there’s more to why many think of Marquand as of «a hired director»: both in the book and in a rare interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvGrt_B6714  from around that time Marquand said that he prefered original Star Wars style to Kershner’s Empire that he felt was «too excessive» to his taste while describing his own personality as that of «a sentimental, very emotional Welshman» and it feels like he was rather sensitive guy.  If his vision was somewhat similar to Lucas’ it doesn’t automatically mean he tried to «kowtow» Lucas or something, it was just a

 concurrence of opinions. In a bout of rage towards Lucas, some tend to miss that if one agrees with him it doesn’t turn him to a «yes-man». All what I say may appear to you as if I tried to suck Lucas’ ass but I’m just trying to be as much objective as it’s possible because I’m interested in expossing real and deep causes of why did everething moved that direction not the other and so on, because I like cinematic history and I always thought simple-minded «whoever-bashing» is no match for objective critisism. Do not forget: this may be a topic  for endless debate however one thing is certain that can not be ignored regardless of the level of Lucas’ genuine involvement in shooting Jedi: Richard was the one who were doing the most laborous task - directing the principal unit, not Lucas.

From reading Rinzler I got an impression that Marquand wasn’t treated too friendly, and experienced not enough of emotional support on the part of cast and crew. I imagine he was under huge psychological pressure not necessarily direct one: he might known that everyone would compare him with Kershner and that alone could add enormous amount of stress; he witnessed groundbreaking success of Empire and, perhaps, worried a great deal of how to give a splendid account of himself; he had to keep up with the budget and learn aboult great many things; and, sorry, but if someone told me «we are a club and you’re an honorary member. We hope you fit in it»(Carrie) I would get VERY nervous and uncomfortable about the whole thing.  Not just that it was impolite, but it could be discouraging for many people. Marquand noticed «a certain note of warning». Not a very uplifting start. They placed themself like an arrogant higher casta vouchsafing graciously him to be enrolled. I think all that such flossing could accomplish is to interpose a gulf between individuals, not make them closer. Why not just be friendly and appreciational to a new man? As for relationship with George impression of mine was ambiguous: on the one hand, «George was good because throughout, he would say,‘Hey, you’re the director,‘shrug and walk away’»(Marquand) on the other - things like «consider the budget!» and «sometimes I felt bad for Richard, because George would ask to see his shot list. A director usually shows up in the morning with a list of shots he needs and, for some, it’s very private»(editor Dunham). That Marquand didn’t feel (or didn’t want ) to be a puppet in hand of Lucas hints indicate where Rinzler describes disagreement over an issue of using multiple cameras which he felt, in the words of Carol Marquand, was «pettifogging».

Kershner  was maybe psychologically more self-confident cause not only of George being his former disciple, but of realising his significanse for Lucas and the whole production.  Marquand was a SW fan like the rest of us and at the time he, perhaps, stood in awe of Lucas and the whole franchise and felt like touching sanctity. If he showed less veneration and wasn’t bound by this awe, perhaps, Lucas wouldn’t dare to interfere, however it naturally provoked more of participation from him. Would be awesome to learn in detail how did Marquand work on the set but from Rinzler’s account I got onle a vague impression despite many-many pages. It’s unfortunate we don’t have such detailed record as Arnord did with Kershner him having wireless mic attached. I read somewhere in the forum that Richard’s face was stiff as rock and bla-bla-bla, but, seriously, can we judge relying on such a shaky criteria? For me it’s obvious that, taking into account the undeniable fact that director’s personality has the major influence, Kershner was more open, hearty while Marquand was a typical Englishman, indisposed to exaggerated sentiments. But this by no means tells of his indifference or unability to maintain friendly relations with both the actors and the crew. And here’s where the fun begins. Rinzler: «To at least one visiting executive [Reynolds], it was «absolutely clear» that Luvas was calling shots, but allowing Marquand to have the appearance of being the director», «out of respect, he was letting Richard do the directing»(Roffman), «he was a little insecure in his role»(Daniels), «Richard couldn’t grasp it and George was concerned, so he never left»(Watts),«he seemed like a bit of a misfit. He didn’t seem to fit in like Kershner. I think he was kind of discomfited». I suppose this sort of thoughts was intiated by the fact that George simply helped Marquand not that the latter was just an instrument of Lucas. Maybe for someone it looked odd and caused such a misinterpretation. The last quote confirms my assumption that everyone was comparing him with Kersh. But one has to take such observations with a certain grain of salt: even direct witnesses can prove to be inconsistent and inexact especially if emotionally motivated. To continue the subject Hamill felt that «George was more vocal regarding technical matters, such as choice of lenses. All of his input came within the bounds of good tast. He  avoided making Richard feel like he wasn’t the captain of the ship - which he was», «it’s so much a creation of George’s that it’s to Richard’s credit that he’s obviously managed to put his bit into it, too»(Watts). All this very interesting but it would be more interesting how Richard himself felt, not to hear just impressions of others. «Richard was so full of enthusiasm. I don’t think he was disgruntled or anything like that»(Carol Marquand). Wikiarticle on ROTJ says that it’s likely Lucas was the director of the second unit while Marquand was doing «the dirty job» and was assisted by Lucas and indeed in all video clips from the shooting scenes with the principals (I refer to an iBook version of the Rinzler’s book) and the mass scenes we hear Marquand’s voice. Additional 30 minutes of lost footage (Luke and Yoda) found recently confirm that Marquand DID direct actively. In George’s own words, «generally, my participation is maybe one-tenth of what it would be if I were directing. People don’t understand why I can be so relaxed at this stage. I can go out to dinner, take weekends off. It’s such a different life when I’m directing a movie». «Actually George was almost a second unit director. I shot second unit with him quite often» (Hamill).

       As for relations with the actors there’s a mixed bag: certainly to call them «bad» is oversimplifying. Tony Daniels seemed to enjoy Marquand as did Mark who prefered his working method to Kershner’s and who got on well with him right from the start. Belonging to the younger generation of filmmakers Marquand’s working style was different than Kershner’s in  terms of tempo. «Marquand can be fast. He’s certainly not a slow director. He keeps the takes to a fairly low number»(Kazanjian). In this context Carrie and Harrison are the one huge question mark for me. Obviously the former disliked Marquand and the quotes that Rinzler provides speak of her hostility to him. But what’s interesting above all, she spoke not just for herself but for Mark as well and how she wrapped her dissatisfaction looks pretty strange to say the least: «It was like Richard was afraid of Harrison or respected Harrison, but he certainly didn’t respect, as far as I could make out, too many other people He’s [Ford] a movie star in a way that I’m not, in a way that Mark isn’t - and Richard kowtowed to him That was my impression. Maybe I’m wrong». Mark: «I liked Richard very much, he was very personable I was surprised that Carrie had problems. She didn’t share that with me». What the hell? It appears that they even never spoke in privy about impression Marquand made?? Did Carrie never manage to find time to ask  her co-stars: «listen, guys, don’t you think our new director is a complete asshole?». If no, then her «revelations» seems to be dubious since «that was my impression, maybe I’m wrong» really exposes something wrong but not with Marquand. Harrison either «enjoyed» or «didn’t take take to Richard at all»(Barton) - unclear... The point is that everyone on any project seaks to put the head of a project in the wrong making the head responsible even for his/her own faults and another one is that even if a director doesn’t get on well with the cast it doesn’t necessarily mean he/she’s responsive for that. Especially concidering how easily offended and unforgiven women can be if something’s going wrong (from their viewpoint). Now what could cause such reaction on the part of Carrie? Maybe this: «everybody knows they were all off the wall at that point, a lot of drink and drugs and partying. She was at a very low ebb»(Barton)? It was like common truth that Carrie hooked on drugs heavily, so maybe it was one of these clashes between her and Marquand when he might call her over the coals regarding the subject, who knows? Maybe she was jealous of  the fame and attention Harrison was receiving? And yet, even if she disliked Marquand, I would point out to the place in the book where Rinzler writes about critical and public reaction to the realease of the Jedi, how he defended  fervently her and Mark against some harsh attacks.  Maybe instead of blaiming Marquand she should have restrained herself and shown more respect to surrounding members of the set as well as  worked up a more serious approach to her acting in some takes like this one:

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

You know... I just don't remember the chewbacca tarzan yell at all In Jedi; I'm not sure if it was in the original or added in the SE. But that's me: I didn't even remember the Greedo shoots first scene when I saw the SE in theaters.

Interesting retrospective. Cool that he mentioned FE.org!