imperialscum

Bingowings said:

imperialscum said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

the only really great actors in the OT, in my opinion, were Guiness and Cushing.

Personally, I would add McDiarmid to the list.

Absolutely agree with you there.

JEJ is a great actor too.

Others like Kenneth Colley, Julian Glover, Caroline Blakinston, Seb Shaw are really good actors but don't really get a chance to shine in the OT.

Well at least we agree on something. :)

I think Kenneth Colley, Julian Glover and Michael Pennington were actually great, despite the short time time got in the films. Imperial officers subplots have always been one of my favourite part in ESB.

Now here we may disagree again but, in my opinion, the main cast was pretty much carried throughout the trilogy by the extremely good support cast.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

the only really great actors in the OT, in my opinion, were Guiness and Cushing.

Personally, I would add McDiarmid to the list.

Typecast may be a decent reason (along with car accident) for reasonably talented Hamill, while in case of average Fishier it is a pure excuse.

Bingowings said:

Naturally I will only give you my opinion.

Well we exchanged our opinions. We don't agree, as usually. And I don't think we will convince each other either, so I will stop at this point. :)

Bingowings said:

The point is the story suggests to me an arc to the character of Leia who is played by Carrie Fisher who has a proven record of playing characters well when they are written well and directed well.

Natalie Portman has a similar track record and she was a plank in three badly written badly directed Star Wars films.

"Playing characters well" is your opinion. In my opinion, her performance was average, considering the potential the well written character offered. As I said, that is most likely the reason why OT were her first and the last big films in her career (luckily for her it was a trilogy so she automatically starred in two subsequent, otherwise I would be talking in singular instead of plural). I mean if you can't shine in such character then it is bound you won't get another important role.

So her track record is a complete opposite to that of Portman. Fisher record include (effectively) one big film with average performance. Portman was great in every character that was at least decently written. And her record include many big films, of variety genre and of different producers/directors.

In OT she was memorable purely because of the well written character and greatness of the films themselves. Her performance did very little to add anything significant to the character.

Consequently, that were her first and the last big films in her career.

vacuum said:

imperialscum said:

She is an okay actress but for the main villain they should hire an actor of higher calibre.

quit dissing fisher.

I believe I am entitled to my opinion and expression of it. If I said she is a great actress I would be lying to you and to myself.

She is an okay actress but for the main villain they should hire an actor of higher calibre.

SilverWook said:

Anybody who thinks Carrie can't play twisted and evil has never seen The Blues Brothers. ;)

Oh come on. There is a huge difference between pressing bomb trigger while having no dialogue (such as Fisher in The Blues Brothers) and actually portraying evilness through superb acting and dialogue delivery (such as Cushing and McDiarmid in OT).

Bingowings said:

I can't see any reason for recasting Carrie Fisher and she would be just as good at being evil as she was at being...good.

I didn't say not recasting her, I just said she shouldn't be given any important role in the film.

Bingowings said:

But Leia as the bad guy...it has to happen...right?

Not with Fisher in that role. At least that's what my opinion is.

SilverWook said:

imperialscum said:

Looking at the thing from a practical (realistic) perspective, Kurtz definitely earned his replacement. This was a self-financed film by Lucas. The shooting time and the budget doubled. This is something even a major studio would be extremely worried about. Well one could argue to Kurtz's defence that Kershner worked extremely slowly, but it is producer's job to ensure things progress as intended (either in a nice or rough manner).

The massive box office receipts, because the movie turned out to be really good, and the tons of toys sold, because the movie turned out to be really good, apparently don't mean much to George. Isn't the end result what really matters?

If Empire had tanked, there would have been no saga. Star Wars would have likely been forever written off as an unrepeatable box office fluke. We'd probably have a nicely restored Criterion Blu Ray of it now though.

I was speaking purely from a practical perspective. At that moment, the bank didn't care about "how successful the film WILL be" because obviously they couldn't know/predict (the main question was probably "would it even get finished?"). They were pulling the loan.  At that point Lucas and his film would go bankrupt (and we wouldn't even get the film). He had to go beg Fox to guarantee the loan. Miraculously they didn't get any of his sequel and merchandising rights.

The extra time was mostly spent on group discussions with actors and countless of retakes. So even if the acting wasn't as good as it is, the film would still turn out great and it (plus toys etc.) would sell just as good.

Now personally I think the extra time/money was worth it. But as I said, I was just speaking from a realistic perspective.

Looking at the thing from a practical (realistic) perspective, Kurtz definitely earned his replacement. This was a self-financed film by Lucas. The shooting time and the budget doubled. This is something even a major studio would be extremely worried about. Well one could argue to Kurtz's defence that Kershner worked extremely slowly, but it is producer's job to ensure things progress as intended (either in a nice or rough manner).

ATMachine said:

Making of ROTJ reveals that Kurtz was indeed replaced during post-production on ESB (in late 1979). According to Howard Kazanjian's recollection, Kurtz showed up one day and Kazanjian had to tell him that he was no longer allowed to work on George's movie.

Which came as a total surprise to Kurtz, apparently. Kazanjian had expected that Lucas would have told Kurtz he was being let go, but apparently Lucas preferred to let Kazanjian do his dirty work for him. (Later, when asked by Kazanjian, Lucas would deny that he had failed to inform Kurtz of his impending dismissal.)

Kurtz accordingly sent in his letter of resignation to Lucasfilm on December 11, 1979.

Thanks. So it was finally cleared up in this book.

SilverWook said:

imperialscum said:

ATMachine said:

Kasdan on the other hand challenges Lucas all the time

Well these conversations prove that the notion that prequels failed because no one challenged Lucas is wrong. It is pretty clear to me now that he always had it his way. Luckily in OT he had relatively great ideas as opposed to the prequels.

Except he didn't always get his way on Empire. Which might be why he sought out someone like Marquand for the next film. And notice Gary Kurtz didn't stick around for Jedi.

Well even in Jedi I don't think everything went his way, but most did (like in ESB).

According to rumours, Kurtz was effectively replaced by Kazanjian already at some point during the production of ESB. When confronted with the question about this matter everyone seem to be reluctant to talk about it so I believe it may actually be true.

Unlike ANH, ESB was an independent film production. According to Secret History of Star Wars, Lucas didn't even want to take Kurtz on board for ESB but eventually Kurtz convinced Lucas to take him. So I don't think he had any power to overrule anything Lucas wanted.

ATMachine said:

Kasdan on the other hand challenges Lucas all the time

Well these conversations prove that the notion that prequels failed because no one challenged Lucas is wrong. It is pretty clear to me now that he always had it his way. Luckily in OT he had relatively great ideas as opposed to the prequels.

ATMachine said:

The book also makes clear how much Lucas controlled things during shooting: he was always on set, and not infrequently offered the actors advice that was contradictory to that of the director. Marquand's personality didn't help: he seems to have been very meek and introverted, and never really bonded with many of the actors. In other words, a perfect hired gun.

Which brings up the question as to why he even hired Marquand if he was spending his time everyday on the actors anyway. In Empire, while he practically directed pre- and post-production himself, he at least let Kershner work with the actors instead of him, justifying his hire.

ATMachine said:

Lucas eventually decided to get rid of the Imperial city-planet altogether, which Kasdan didn't like:

Lucas: Just having the moon and the Death Star and not having Had Abbadon at all is... then you can have Vader's fleet, a limited number of starships out there. It's out in the middle of nowhere. It justifies the primitive moon. Right now, Had Abbadon is getting in the way of everything. It's cumbersome. And I like the idea that the trap is that the rebels think they're fighting a half-finished Death Star.

Marquand: It's wonderful.

Kasdan: I think Had Abbadon is worth saving. I think it's worth destroying the nerve center of the Empire. Forget the Death Star.

Lucas: But then you're still dealing with the question as to why have the fleet? The thing about the Death Star is it's so manageable. The planet is not manageable at all. It is too big to be manageable.

Kasdan: But it's much more interesting and it is new. The look of it is new and the idea that it's bigger than a Death Star is interesting.

Lucas apparently thought that he had to choose between one of two set-pieces going into the film: either the immense Imperial capital world-city of Had Abbadon, or the lush primitive jungle moon of the Ewoks.

We know which option Lucas ultimately chose, but Kasdan repeatedly argued for going the other way--keeping Had Abbadon and dropping the Forest Moon (and the second Death Star) entirely:

Kasdan: I think that we have to break out of here somehow and think of a simpler idea. Maybe get rid of the Ewoks.

Lucas: I know they're one of the things that are causing trouble.

Howard Kazanjian: Let me ask you a question: Just for five minutes, pretend that the Ewoks don't exist. What would we accomplish?

Lucas: Then you have a giant hole in the script that we have to fill with new ideas.

I completely agree with Lucas on "Imperial city vs. remote moon" argument. Final battle on imperial city wouldn't be "something new" but rather something very casual on predictable. On top of that unrealistic.

But obviously I agree with Kasdan on Ewoks. It is very interesting to see that Lucas did not inherently oppose the idea of getting rid of Ewoks. According to this conversation, he even thinks they are causing the trouble.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I'm pretty much just a retro gamer (and a moderate one, at that), and I'm completely tired of all the "Jedi vs Sith" hoohah, so it's a safe bet that this game probably wouldn't be for me.

I was actually reluctant to play it too (mostly because I don't play MMOs). But then my brother bought me the game and I gave it a try. First thing I liked was that it wasn't a MMO if I chose to ignore MMO aspects (they didn't really get into my way). Then when I started playing it for a while it pulled me in. :)

It is far from just "Jedi vs Sith". I mean you can choose to play Smuggler, Imperial Agent, Bounty Hunter or Republic Trooper classes and there will be only occasional references to Jedi or Sith. Imperial Agent class storyline is imo the best in the game. It is sort of an "evil James Bond" (kind of a lame description but okay). Smuggler class is basically mix of Han Solo, a pirate and a criminal (if you wish to play it rough). I don't think you could actually play these things in Star Wars games before.

And even I am not a big fan of "Jedi vs Sith", but still playing a Sith is a new experience as well.

Bingowings said:

Artoo and Threepio are fully rounded characters (arguably more so than Anakin and Obi-Wan) and yet they can be sold and ordered around and generally abused even by the heroes.

R2 and 3PO are not fighting droids. Their concept and role is completely different than that of the combat droids and clone troopers. R2 and 3PO will always have more character and appeal than an entire combat droid army and clone army combined (no matter how well the idea was/would be executed).

DuracellEnergizer said:

I never played it. Tried reading some of the novel & comic tie-ins, but that only served to piss me off.

Most of the novels aren't good. Especially Revan and Fatal Alliance have some ridiculous stuff in it. The game itself, on the other hand, is very good (in my opinion of course). As I said, I really enjoyed Imperial Agent and the two Sith class storylines. And it is not just about storylines, the game is well designed and if you want to have a good visual experience of Star Wars universe, SWTOR is currently the best opinion.

But if you are not really a gamer (ie you don't like games in general) then I probably wouldn't suggest it.

Well at least it is porbably the first MMO where you grind by doing the storyline (a proper storyline at least).

Bingowings said:

This may be unpopular as we have just had three crap films where droids fight troopers but A) The idea wasn't bad it was the execution

Actually the idea itself is bad. Maybe not for a hardcore sci-fi film but it certainly is for Star Wars. When you see a rebel or a stromtrooper you know this guy fights for something, has some backstory, has a family somewhere, came from somewhere and his death will affect people. As for clones and droids, they completely unappealing and boring. And a war is boring if it is fought between clones and dorids. It has little affect on galactic population. It is like kids playing battles with toys soldiers, while adults don't care about it.

I think I ll wait for digital version. It is much more convenient for me. And if there is really more material in digital edition than in printed book, another reason more to buy digital.

ray_afraid said:

Really like that art and animation.

Yes it is nice. I especially like the second half of the "rule 1".

japanese washlet toilet seat price