Why N'Sync's Cameo Is Least of Ep. II's Problems
James W. King
1. N'Sync: Asset or Detriment to Episode II?
2. Episode II -- How Dark?
3. Notion of a Nine-Episode Star Wars Film Series Fabricated
by the Media?
4. Of Toy Blasters & Lightsabers
5. Candid Lucas Remark Underscores Unsettling Fact
N'Sync: Asset or Detriment to Episode II?
All the nonsense about the cameo appearance of several of N'Sync's band
members in Episode II is the LEAST of problems confronting Episode II.
On the contrary, considering how much choreography that N'Sync's members are
accustomed to doing, they would seem a natural choice to consider for a cameo
fighting sequence since they'd probably be pretty adept at adapting to the
complicated choreography of fencing and swordplay.
(However, I would NOT like to see N'Sync as Jedi fighters introduce a
pop-and-lock maneuver to Jedi lightsaber dueling. Nor would I welcome
Lucasfilm's licensing an "N'Sync Episode II On-Set Pass Game" to complement the
group's "Backstage Pass" board game already on toy stores' and departments'
shelves -- and deep-discounted at that!)
Star Wars fans should endeavor to keep things in perspective: The N'Sync
cameo sequence really is insignificant next to all the other major problems
confronting Episode II, including the most imposing one of all, the Pablum
Menace, the kiddie-moviefication of Star Wars.
At least with several of N'Sync's band members in Episode II, I *might*
have been convinced that Lucas was making a quasi-inclusive effort to broaden
its movie-goer demographic to encompass teenagers 13-18 years of age as well
and was no longer aiming at children 12 years of age and younger as its primary
audience.
What's more, since reading past reports of script problems with the Episode
II love story between Anakin and Amidala -- the very emotional crux upon which
"Attack of the Clones" plot hangs -- I would not have been surprised if Lucas
had considered having John Williams and his son Joseph compose a love song,
perhaps with a title like "What About Love?", for a group like N'Sync to sing
as an officially released work to appear as an extra bonus track on the CD
soundtrack recording but not to be heard over the end credits or within the
film itself.
After all, Anakin Skywalker is the one facing the problem of divided
loyalties and conflicts over his Jedi vows versus seeking true love in Episode
II; therefore, such a song would probably best reflect the male viewpoint of
Anakin, thereby justifying its being sung by a male band/singer. Such a song
would surely resonate in these times among single men and women in the military
whose romantic lives are interrupted by the demands of their military careers.
Of course, a love song would only be appropriate if the love story in the
film rings true. After all, no love song is gonna save a movie if its love
story fails to tug at our own heartstrings. However, if the love story rings
true, such a song would surely enhance it all the moreso.
Episode II -- How Dark?
Q: How much darker is Episode II going to be compared with "The Phantom
Menace"?
a. A little darker
b. Somewhat darker
c. Much darker
d. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of the two
Ewok TV movies
e. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "Return
of the Jedi"
f. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "The
Empire Strikes Back"
At last, there is a confirmed and verified answer to that question,
provided in November 2001 by none other than George Lucas himself. The answer
is "a."
> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
TV Guide: "'The Empire Strikes Back' was a second act in a three-act
story. By its very nature it was darker. Can we expect that of 'Episode II:
Attack of the Clones'?"
George Lucas: "What happens, I'm afraid, is that this one does get a
little darker. Episode III [scheduled for release in 2005] is the darkest of
them all."
TV Guide: "Are you concerned you will lose younger movie-goers if it's too
dark?"
George Lucas: "Well, the story is the story. It was the same thing with
'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best of the movies,
[but] it was the least popular of the first three."
______________________________________
Apparently, by his opinion that "The Empire Strikes Back" is the least
popular of the Original Trilogy, George Lucas equates the popularity of a movie
moreso to the bottom line of its box-office profits than to its actual artistic
merits and storyline quality and integrity.
Notion of a Nine-Episode Star Wars Film Series Fabricated by the Media?
Get this: Lucas now blames the media for creating the notion of his
original master vision of a nine-episode Star Wars film series!
> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
TV Guide: "What will it take for you to do a third trilogy, with episodes
VII, VIII and IX?"
George Lucas: "Each time I do a trilogy, it's 10 years out of my life.
I'll finish Episode III and I'll be 60. And the next 20 years after that I want
to spend doing something other than Star Wars. If at 80 I'm still lively and
having a good time and think I can work hard for another 10 years between 80
and 90, I might consider it. But don't count on it. There's nothing written,
and it's not like I'm completing something [by doing that Final Trilogy]. I'd
have to start from scratch. [The idea of Episodes VII, VIII and IX] was more of
a media thing than it was me."
_______________________________
In his August 1977 Rolling Stone magazine interview, it was none other than
George Lucas himself who spelled out his master vision of a "trilogy of
trilogies," nine episodes. What's more, he even entertained the notion of a
*fourth trilogy,* Episodes 10-12, which he speculated would be more "ephemeral"
in nature, revolving around a Jedi quest story of some sort.
So, is George Lucas insinuating that that Rolling Stone reporter put words
in his mouth in August 1977?
Of Toy Blasters & Lightsabers
Q: Should SW toy blaster guns and lightsabers carry a parental warning on
them?
> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
TV Guide: "Do you ever see Star Wars merchandise and go, 'Man, I've got to
have that!'"
George Lucas: "There's stuff that comes through my office and I say, 'This
is great. I'd like to have one of these.' But I don't have a lot of Star Wars
stuff. One of our employees [at Lucasfilm] has a huge collection. I've never
seen it, but he has a whole warehouse that he's rented just to hold all his
Star Wars things. My favorite personal item is something that came out with the
original movie. I think it was the very first licensing thing we ever did, a
little clay Wookiee mug. Chewbacca sits on my desk and holds my pencils.
There's very little else I have, and we don't really have a lot of it around my
house. My son has a few things, but he's probably got more of other kinds of
things than he has Star Wars toys. I mean, he has them, but like any other
parent, I'm not going to let him go wild [buying SW toys]. There's only so much
I can afford."
TV Guide: "Does he [your son] have a lightsaber?"
George Lucas: "No, I won't let him have a lightsaber. No lightsabers and
no pistols."
TV Guide: "Too violent?"
George Lucas: "Well, too easy for him to get into trouble with it and
knock things over."
___________________________________
If he genuinely feels that toys emulating weapons are detrimental to
children's development, then why does George Lucas still approve for toy Star
Wars lightsabers and blaster guns to be sold to other parents' children?
(Isn't Jett Lucas around 8-10 years old now?)
Candid Lucas Remark Underscores Unsettling Fact
Excerpt from the Jan. 28 A&E Biography on"George Lucas: Creating an Empire":
Biography Narrator Harry Smith: "After three years of back-breaking work,
Star Wars was finally finished. It looked and sounded like no other movie. Yet,
the question loomed: Would it find an audience?". . . .
Harry Smith (in on-site interview): "You're screening this [rough cut] of
your movie for your friends -- and what do they say?"
George Lucas: "The Old Famous Screening: Well, I showed it to a group of
my friends, some of whom felt sorry for me, saying, 'Oh gee, that's too bad,
George.' And some of them said, 'This is the worst thing I've ever seen!' And
some of whom said they liked it."
Steven Spielberg: "And later on when he and I were together, you know,
George said, 'I think that I've just made a kid's movie. I think this is not
going to fly' (so to speak). And I said, 'It's going to be a big hit.' And
George said, 'How much do you think it's gonna make?' I said, "I think it'll
make 50-60 [million dollars at the box office]. And George said, "Yeah? Well, I
think it'll make 15-25 [million dollars]. Wow! Boy, were we wrong! (laughs)"
_________________________
Now wait a minute: Since late May 1999, George Lucas' latter-day
revisionist history has been that Star Wars was "always intended to be a series
of children's movies." Therefore, in light of what Lucas said to Spielberg
above in spring 1977, why would George have ever expressed fears about his
first Star Wars film inadvertently turning out to be a kiddie flick if he had
intended Star Wars as as a children's movie all along?
Could it be that (Gasp!) Spielberg's candid remark only underscored the
now-sealed-in-carbonite fact that Lucas targeted the Original-Trilogy Star Wars
films as universal-age-appeal movies for "12-year-olds of all ages" (i.e.
adults, teens, children -- all age groups across the board) and not primarily
for the literal chronological-12-years-old-and-under set?
-- James King
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
>Five Topics Covered in this Post:
Why not just one?
> 1. N'Sync: Asset or Detriment to Episode II?
>N'Sync: Asset or Detriment to Episode II?
At last someone's asking an original question.
> All the nonsense about the cameo appearance of several of N'Sync's band
>members in Episode II is the LEAST of problems confronting Episode II.
That's exactly what someone said in the subject line.
> On the contrary, considering how much choreography that N'Sync's members are
>accustomed to doing, they would seem a natural choice to consider for a cameo
>fighting sequence since they'd probably be pretty adept at adapting to the
>complicated choreography of fencing and swordplay.
Or, they could just appear briefly and get blown up.
> (However, I would NOT like to see N'Sync as Jedi fighters introduce a
>pop-and-lock maneuver to Jedi lightsaber dueling. Nor would I welcome
>Lucasfilm's licensing an "N'Sync Episode II On-Set Pass Game" to complement the
>group's "Backstage Pass" board game already on toy stores' and departments'
>shelves -- and deep-discounted at that!)
OK, I recognise all the words, but the meaning is unclear.
> Star Wars fans should endeavor to keep things in perspective: The N'Sync
>cameo sequence really is insignificant next to all the other major problems
>confronting Episode II, including the most imposing one of all, the Pablum
>Menace, the kiddie-moviefication of Star Wars.
Weird, the meaning's clear, but I don't recognise a couple of words. Bet
you made some up to sound clever. How's that working out for you?
> At least with several of N'Sync's band members in Episode II, I *might*
>have been convinced that Lucas was making a quasi-inclusive effort to broaden
>its movie-goer demographic to encompass teenagers 13-18 years of age as well
>and was no longer aiming at children 12 years of age and younger as its primary
>audience.
Yeah, that's obviously it.
> What's more, since reading past reports of script problems with the Episode
>II love story between Anakin and Amidala -- the very emotional crux upon which
>"Attack of the Clones" plot hangs -- I would not have been surprised if Lucas
>had considered having John Williams and his son Joseph compose a love song,
>perhaps with a title like "What About Love?", for a group like N'Sync to sing
>as an officially released work to appear as an extra bonus track on the CD
>soundtrack recording but not to be heard over the end credits or within the
>film itself.
Of course. It happens all the time.
> After all, Anakin Skywalker is the one facing the problem of divided
>loyalties and conflicts over his Jedi vows versus seeking true love in Episode
>II; therefore, such a song would probably best reflect the male viewpoint of
>Anakin, thereby justifying its being sung by a male band/singer. Such a song
>would surely resonate in these times among single men and women in the military
>whose romantic lives are interrupted by the demands of their military careers.
You know, it's getting late, I'll miss South Park if I don't leave soon.
> Of course, a love song would only be appropriate if the love story in the
>film rings true. After all, no love song is gonna save a movie if its love
>story fails to tug at our own heartstrings. However, if the love story rings
>true, such a song would surely enhance it all the moreso.
Define "enhance"
---
- Dug.
---
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
Why not just one?
> 2. Episode II -- How Dark?
>Episode II -- How Dark?
> Q: How much darker is Episode II going to be compared with "The Phantom
>Menace"?
> a. A little darker
> b. Somewhat darker
> c. Much darker
> d. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of the two
> Ewok TV movies
> e. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "Return
> of the Jedi"
> f. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "The
> Empire Strikes Back"
> At last, there is a confirmed and verified answer to that question,
>provided in November 2001 by none other than George Lucas himself. The answer
>is "a."
Gee. "a." is the answer he gave two years ago. At last he's confirmed
what he already said. Next the surprise news that "c." was the answer to
"How much darker is episode 3 going to be."
>> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
>the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
"At last" Two months ago. You are such a source of new info.
> TV Guide: "'The Empire Strikes Back' was a second act in a three-act
>story. By its very nature it was darker. Can we expect that of 'Episode II:
>Attack of the Clones'?"
> George Lucas: "What happens, I'm afraid, is that this one does get a
>little darker. Episode III [scheduled for release in 2005] is the darkest of
>them all."
Shock. The answer is "a." for episode 2, "c." for episode 3. Wow. And
this is new informatiom, how?
> TV Guide: "Are you concerned you will lose younger movie-goers if it's too
>dark?"
> George Lucas: "Well, the story is the story. It was the same thing with
>'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best of the movies,
>[but] it was the least popular of the first three."
Which is why I always thought roping in the littlies with Episode I was a
bit of a silly thing to do. But hey, it worked for Harry Potter.
> Apparently, by his opinion that "The Empire Strikes Back" is the least
>popular of the Original Trilogy, George Lucas equates the popularity of a movie
>moreso to the bottom line of its box-office profits than to its actual artistic
>merits and storyline quality and integrity.
Yes. It's a good indicator. Artistic merits and quality make it "A
lot of people think it is the best" - a indicator of quality. A lot less
people went to see it, or rather, a people went to see a lot less times,
so it was by that indicator "the least popular of the three."
---
- Dug.
---
The Hand make The Shadows look like insects.
---
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
Why not just one?
> 3. Notion of a Nine-Episode Star Wars Film Series Fabricated
> by the Media?
>Notion of a Nine-Episode Star Wars Film Series Fabricated by the Media?
Is that really a question?
> Get this: Lucas now blames the media for creating the notion of his
>original master vision of a nine-episode Star Wars film series!
No, read carefully. He blames a Fidonet Conspiracy.
>> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
>the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
This is the first time you've cleaned the bird's cage since Novemeber,
isn't it?
> TV Guide: "What will it take for you to do a third trilogy, with episodes
>VII, VIII and IX?"
> George Lucas: "Each time I do a trilogy, it's 10 years out of my life.
>I'll finish Episode III and I'll be 60. And the next 20 years after that I want
>to spend doing something other than Star Wars. If at 80 I'm still lively and
>having a good time and think I can work hard for another 10 years between 80
>and 90, I might consider it. But don't count on it. There's nothing written,
>and it's not like I'm completing something [by doing that Final Trilogy]. I'd
>have to start from scratch. [The idea of Episodes VII, VIII and IX] was more of
>a media thing than it was me."
Sounds fair.
> In his August 1977 Rolling Stone magazine interview, it was none other than
>George Lucas himself who spelled out his master vision of a "trilogy of
>trilogies," nine episodes. What's more, he even entertained the notion of a
>*fourth trilogy,* Episodes 10-12, which he speculated would be more "ephemeral"
>in nature, revolving around a Jedi quest story of some sort.
"Vision." The media took it as fact. The real world has imposed it self
on Lucas, and he has realised that maybe he can't fulfil it. The vision
changed.
> So, is George Lucas insinuating that that Rolling Stone reporter put words
>in his mouth in August 1977?
No. He's insinuating that the media has taken "vision" as "hard and fast
plans"
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
>Of Toy Blasters & Lightsabers
> Q: Should SW toy blaster guns and lightsabers carry a parental warning on
>them?
Yes.
>> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
>the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
At what point does fair use end? You have to be getting close.
> TV Guide: "Do you ever see Star Wars merchandise and go, 'Man, I've got to
>have that!'"
> George Lucas: "There's stuff that comes through my office and I say, 'This
>is great. I'd like to have one of these.' But I don't have a lot of Star Wars
>stuff. One of our employees [at Lucasfilm] has a huge collection.
His name wouldn't be Steve would it?
> I've never
>seen it, but he has a whole warehouse that he's rented just to hold all his
>Star Wars things. My favorite personal item is something that came out with the
>original movie. I think it was the very first licensing thing we ever did, a
>little clay Wookiee mug. Chewbacca sits on my desk and holds my pencils.
>There's very little else I have, and we don't really have a lot of it around my
>house. My son has a few things, but he's probably got more of other kinds of
>things than he has Star Wars toys. I mean, he has them, but like any other
>parent, I'm not going to let him go wild [buying SW toys]. There's only so much
>I can afford."
OK, I see now that my earlier comment was wrong. This has cleared it all
up for me. The guns shouldn't be labelled.
> TV Guide: "Does he [your son] have a lightsaber?"
> George Lucas: "No, I won't let him have a lightsaber. No lightsabers and
>no pistols."
Wait a sec... this actually had something to do with the topic!
> TV Guide: "Too violent?"
> George Lucas: "Well, too easy for him to get into trouble with it and
>knock things over."
OK, they should be labelled. "Warning, may be used to knock stuff over."
>___________________________________
>
> If he genuinely feels that toys emulating weapons are detrimental to
>children's development, then why does George Lucas still approve for toy Star
>Wars lightsabers and blaster guns to be sold to other parents' children?
What? Did you read what he said?
> (Isn't Jett Lucas around 8-10 years old now?)
How should I know? Am I George Lucas' son's keeper?
M. Harris
[I'm going to regret this, but what the heck. I'm out for cheap
thrills.]
> N'Sync: Asset or Detriment to Episode II?
> (However, I would NOT like to see N'Sync as Jedi fighters introduce a
> pop-and-lock maneuver to Jedi lightsaber dueling.
Heh! Tell the truth. Did you order Darren's Dance Grooves?
> Star Wars fans should endeavor to keep things in perspective: The N'Sync
> cameo sequence really is insignificant next to all the other major problems
> confronting Episode II, including the most imposing one of all, the Pablum
> Menace, the kiddie-moviefication of Star Wars.
>
> At least with several of N'Sync's band members in Episode II, I *might*
> have been convinced that Lucas was making a quasi-inclusive effort to broaden
> its movie-goer demographic to encompass teenagers 13-18 years of age as well
> and was no longer aiming at children 12 years of age and younger as its primary
> audience.
Honest question: why would he play up the love story and still try to
make it a kiddie movie? The two seem mutually exclusive. Little kids
think kissing is gross.
> Of course, a love song would only be appropriate if the love story in the
> film rings true. After all, no love song is gonna save a movie if its love
> story fails to tug at our own heartstrings. However, if the love story rings
> true, such a song would surely enhance it all the moreso.
Ack. That is a really bad idea! I seriously doubt it would happen,
though.
> Steven Spielberg: "And later on when he and I were together, you know,
> George said, 'I think that I've just made a kid's movie. I think this is not
> going to fly' (so to speak). And I said, 'It's going to be a big hit.' And
> George said, 'How much do you think it's gonna make?' I said, "I think it'll
> make 50-60 [million dollars at the box office]. And George said, "Yeah? Well, I
> think it'll make 15-25 [million dollars]. Wow! Boy, were we wrong! (laughs)"
>
>
> Now wait a minute: Since late May 1999, George Lucas' latter-day
> revisionist history has been that Star Wars was "always intended to be a series
> of children's movies." Therefore, in light of what Lucas said to Spielberg
> above in spring 1977, why would George have ever expressed fears about his
> first Star Wars film inadvertently turning out to be a kiddie flick if he had
> intended Star Wars as as a children's movie all along?
I have nothing to add to this except to say I caught Spielberg's
remark too and it made me chuckle. It's pretty obvious that the first
trilogy was intended for all ages, so all this business about them
being made for kids is bogus.
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
Why not just one?
> 5. Candid Lucas Remark Underscores Unsettling Fact
>Excerpt from the Jan. 28 A&E Biography on"George Lucas: Creating an Empire":
Wait... a second source! Was the shadow source on the grass knoll?
> Biography Narrator Harry Smith: "After three years of back-breaking work,
>Star Wars was finally finished. It looked and sounded like no other movie. Yet,
>the question loomed: Would it find an audience?". . . .
And would that audience have the patience to read posts that go for too
long and have no actual worthwhile content?
> Harry Smith (in on-site interview): "You're screening this [rough cut] of
>your movie for your friends -- and what do they say?"
> George Lucas: "The Old Famous Screening: Well, I showed it to a group of
>my friends, some of whom felt sorry for me, saying, 'Oh gee, that's too bad,
>George.' And some of them said, 'This is the worst thing I've ever seen!' And
>some of whom said they liked it."
Waiting for a point.
> Steven Spielberg: "And later on when he and I were together, you know,
>George said, 'I think that I've just made a kid's movie. I think this is not
>going to fly' (so to speak). And I said, 'It's going to be a big hit.' And
>George said, 'How much do you think it's gonna make?' I said, "I think it'll
>make 50-60 [million dollars at the box office]. And George said, "Yeah? Well, I
>think it'll make 15-25 [million dollars]. Wow! Boy, were we wrong! (laughs)"
Still waiting...
>_________________________
>
> Now wait a minute: Since late May 1999, George Lucas' latter-day
>revisionist history has been that Star Wars was "always intended to be a series
>of children's movies."
If you're gonna quote, source it. Otherwise it's meaningless.
> Therefore, in light of what Lucas said to Spielberg
>above in spring 1977, why would George have ever expressed fears about his
>first Star Wars film inadvertently turning out to be a kiddie flick if he had
>intended Star Wars as as a children's movie all along?
Spielberg was quoting from memory. I can't see where George said "kiddie
flick", he said "Kid's movie". And then he said he didn't think it would
work.
> Could it be that (Gasp!) Spielberg's candid remark only underscored the
>now-sealed-in-carbonite fact that Lucas targeted the Original-Trilogy Star Wars
>films as universal-age-appeal movies for "12-year-olds of all ages" (i.e.
>adults, teens, children -- all age groups across the board) and not primarily
>for the literal chronological-12-years-old-and-under set?
You can't target the general audience without targeting the under 12s. If
it's not appropiate for them, than it's for the over twelve market. Think
before you type.
David A McIntee
"James W. King" <cine...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote >
> TV Guide: "'The Empire Strikes Back' was a second act in a three-act
> story. By its very nature it was darker. Can we expect that of 'Episode
II:
> Attack of the Clones'?"
>
> George Lucas: "What happens, I'm afraid, is that this one does get a
> little darker
Darker than what? TPM or ESB? It can be read either way.
>. Episode III [scheduled for release in 2005] is the darkest of
> them all."
All of what? The new trilogy or the whole sextet? It can be read either way.
> TV Guide: "Are you concerned you will lose younger movie-goers if
it's too
> dark?"
>
> George Lucas: "Well, the story is the story. It was the same thing
with
> 'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best of the
movies,
> [but] it was the least popular of the first three."
>
>
> ______________________________________
>
>
> Apparently, by his opinion that "The Empire Strikes Back" is the least
> popular of the Original Trilogy, George Lucas equates the popularity of a
movie
> moreso to the bottom line of its box-office profits than to its actual
artistic
> merits and storyline quality and integrity.
Correct- if less people pay to see it, it's less popular. But George there
seems to be saying that if it was the best, then relative lack of popularity
doesn't matter as much.
At least, as usual with everything in the post, it can be read both ways.
By all means trash movie if you see it and hate it, but...
> So, is George Lucas insinuating that that Rolling Stone reporter put
words
> in his mouth in August 1977?
Like journos have never done *that* before...
> If he genuinely feels that toys emulating weapons are detrimental to
> children's development, then why does George Lucas still approve for toy
Star
> Wars lightsabers and blaster guns to be sold to other parents' children?
Or maybe he thinks the responsibilty is that of the individual parent, not
some self-appointed watchdog. More power to him.
Or could it be that there was nothing inadvertant about it - you've only got
(at most) Spielberg's tone and body language for something that happened 20
years ago.
Why not just wait till the movie comes out, then see it and tell us what you
thought.
(Except I suspect that'll be like the traditional "we'll give a fair trial,
then hang you")
--
--
"Oh go away, repress someone else."
http://www.btinternet.com/~david.mcintee
Redemption 03- Blake's 7/Babylon 5 convention, 21-23 February 2003.
http://www.smof.com/redemption
Currently reading: Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy
This month's guest quote: "We've had enough moral controversy on this ship
for one day. " (Captain Janeway)
David A McIntee
"Paul "Duggy" Duggan" <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> wrote
> > George Lucas: "Well, too easy for him to get into trouble with it
and
> >knock things over."
>
> OK, they should be labelled. "Warning, may be used to knock stuff over."
It's not so stupid- I do a few stagefighting workshops a year. Some are at
conventions, and those ones are mainly for the sake of people who want to
wear weapons and put on a show in the con masquade - and this is a point I
always make pretty early. Even if you use harmless soft foam weapons, if you
knock over a drink belonging to a six-foot plus rugby-playing Klingon, you's
still going to get hurt.
David A McIntee
"M. Harris" <mha...@MAPSONcliffhanger.com> wrote > I have nothing to add to
this except to say I caught Spielberg's
> remark too and it made me chuckle. It's pretty obvious that the first
> trilogy was intended for all ages, so all this business about them
> being made for kids is bogus.
I think people see confusion between something made for kids but intended
suit everyone, and something intended *only* for kids.
Stuff like the original Holy Trilogy is the best kind of kids' movie - just
like, say, The (original) Love Bug, Wallace And Gromit, Mousehunt etc
David A McIntee
> >revisionist history has been that Star Wars was "always intended to be a
series
> >of children's movies."
>
> If you're gonna quote, source it. Otherwise it's meaningless.
Much as I hate to play devil's advocate (except to see that girl get her kit
off, and Al Pacino do some great rants), Lucas says this in the DVD
commentary for TPM
M. Harris
>
> "M. Harris" <mha...@MAPSONcliffhanger.com> wrote > I have nothing to add to
> this except to say I caught Spielberg's
> > remark too and it made me chuckle. It's pretty obvious that the first
> > trilogy was intended for all ages, so all this business about them
> > being made for kids is bogus.
>
> I think people see confusion between something made for kids but intended
> suit everyone, and something intended *only* for kids.
>
> Stuff like the original Holy Trilogy is the best kind of kids' movie - just
> like, say, The (original) Love Bug, Wallace And Gromit, Mousehunt etc
>
I think it's the reverse -- I think they were written without any sort
of specific age group in mind and happen to be great kids movies as
well. Well, the original trilogy at least. Then again, it could be
closer to something like Harry Potter or Roald Dahl, where the books
are written for kids and put in the kids section, but are definitely
*intended* to be read by adults as well... sort of a grown-up's fairy
tale. Hrm. Now I'm talking myself in circles.
(Did Lucas say somewhere that Star Wars was made for kids? How'd this
idea get started anyway? I seem to have come in on the tail end of
this controversy...)
AMSNYD
From: cine...@aol.comNoSpam (James W. King)
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 3:22 AM
Message-id: <20020128042203...@mb-cs.aol.com>
Five Topics Covered in this Post:
1. N'Sync: Asset or Detriment to Episode II?
2. Episode II -- How Dark?
3. Notion of a Nine-Episode Star Wars Film Series Fabricated
by the Media?
4. Of Toy Blasters & Lightsabers
5. Candid Lucas Remark Underscores Unsettling Fact
N'Sync: Asset or Detriment to Episode II?
All the nonsense about the cameo appearance of several of N'Sync's band
members in Episode II is the LEAST of problems confronting Episode II.>>
You have a good point here, it is the least of Episode II's POTENTIAL problems.
<<On the contrary, considering how much choreography that N'Sync's members are
accustomed to doing, they would seem a natural choice to consider for a cameo
fighting sequence since they'd probably be pretty adept at adapting to the
complicated choreography of fencing and swordplay.>>
Maybe, but prancing around like a fairy and fencing are two different things.
<< (However, I would NOT like to see N'Sync as Jedi fighters introduce a
pop-and-lock maneuver to Jedi lightsaber dueling. Nor would I welcome
Lucasfilm's licensing an "N'Sync Episode II On-Set Pass Game" to complement the
group's "Backstage Pass" board game already on toy stores' and departments'
shelves -- and deep-discounted at that!)>>
Agreed.
<<Star Wars fans should endeavor to keep things in perspective: The N'Sync
cameo sequence really is insignificant next to all the other major problems
confronting Episode II, including the most imposing one of all, the Pablum
Menace, the kiddie-moviefication of Star Wars.>>
Agreed.
<<At least with several of N'Sync's band members in Episode II, I *might*
have been convinced that Lucas was making a quasi-inclusive effort to broaden
its movie-goer demographic to encompass teenagers 13-18 years of age as well
and was no longer aiming at children 12 years of age and younger as its primary
audience.
What's more, since reading past reports of script problems with the Episode
II love story between Anakin and Amidala -- the very emotional crux upon which
"Attack of the Clones" plot hangs -- I would not have been surprised if Lucas
had considered having John Williams and his son Joseph compose a love song,
perhaps with a title like "What About Love?", for a group like N'Sync to sing
as an officially released work to appear as an extra bonus track on the CD
soundtrack recording but not to be heard over the end credits or within the
film itself.>>
James that's possibly the worst idea I have ever heard.
<<Episode II -- How Dark?
Q: How much darker is Episode II going to be compared with "The Phantom
Menace"?
a. A little darker
b. Somewhat darker
c. Much darker
d. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of the two
Ewok TV movies
e. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "Return
of the Jedi"
f. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "The
Empire Strikes Back"
At last, there is a confirmed and verified answer to that question,
provided in November 2001 by none other than George Lucas himself. The answer
is "a.">>
Yeah, but Lucas didn't take your friggin' quiz, he was asked will this be
darker and Lucas said yes. He used the words "a little darker" but that could
mean anything. Lucas also said he was "afraid" it was getting a little darker,
signifying that it was darker enough to an extent where it would influence the
box office receipts. This sounds significantly darker. "A little" was
probably in perspective with the third. Actually, I'm afraid Lucas will do a
180 and make it too dark. I don't want a Star Wars as light and fluffy as TPM,
but I don't want an Alien type flick. I want something like ESB, which was
darker, but still had its' light moments. It's too bad TPM couldn't be like
ANH, my favorite of the films so far.
<<TV Guide: "Are you concerned you will lose younger movie-goers if it's too
dark?"
George Lucas: "Well, the story is the story. It was the same thing with
'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best of the movies,
[but] it was the least popular of the first three."
______________________________________
Apparently, by his opinion that "The Empire Strikes Back" is the least
popular of the Original Trilogy, George Lucas equates the popularity of a movie
moreso to the bottom line of its box-office profits than to its actual artistic
merits and storyline quality and integrity.>>
I think the opposite is true. It sounds like Lucas is going to stick to his
artistic guns and make Episodes II and III darker even though he may make less
$ than TPM. This will, however, earn him more artistic credit than TPM earned
him (or cost him).
<<Notion of a Nine-Episode Star Wars Film Series Fabricated by the Media?
Get this: Lucas now blames the media for creating the notion of his
original master vision of a nine-episode Star Wars film series!
> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
TV Guide: "What will it take for you to do a third trilogy, with episodes
VII, VIII and IX?"
George Lucas: "Each time I do a trilogy, it's 10 years out of my life.
I'll finish Episode III and I'll be 60. And the next 20 years after that I want
to spend doing something other than Star Wars. If at 80 I'm still lively and
having a good time and think I can work hard for another 10 years between 80
and 90, I might consider it. But don't count on it. There's nothing written,
and it's not like I'm completing something [by doing that Final Trilogy]. I'd
have to start from scratch. [The idea of Episodes VII, VIII and IX] was more of
a media thing than it was me."
_______________________________
In his August 1977 Rolling Stone magazine interview, it was none other than
George Lucas himself who spelled out his master vision of a "trilogy of
trilogies," nine episodes. What's more, he even entertained the notion of a
*fourth trilogy,* Episodes 10-12, which he speculated would be more "ephemeral"
in nature, revolving around a Jedi quest story of some sort.
So, is George Lucas insinuating that that Rolling Stone reporter put words
in his mouth in August 1977?>>
I read that Rolling Stone article. His idea of the Star Wars series was pretty
vague then. He thought only one of the sequels would be a prequel. It sounds
like he hadn't worked out all the bugs yet. In 1977 Star Wars had just become
a hit, while a few months ago he was scared to death it was to be a flop, or
only successful enough to do cheap sequels like the Planet of the Apes series.
When Star Wars became as big as it did, Lucas was in seventh heaven. Ideas
were probably rushing through his head a mile a minute. "Yeah, I can do twelve
of these now, this was so successful." The twelve movie idea was probably just
something he was considering that he happened to mention to the reporter. Do
you ever get an idea to do something, tell someone about it, but, as time
progresses, change your mind? That's what Lucas did. I do think that Lucas's
statement about episodes 7-9 not being his idea is inaccurate, but it's not
totally untrue. His story about the rebellion defeating the Empire was to end
the series, and was originally to last through episode 9. When he ended it
early with 6, his story really did end and he had no ideas for 7-9. Just my
theory.
<<Of Toy Blasters & Lightsabers
Q: Should SW toy blaster guns and lightsabers carry a parental warning on
them?
> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
TV Guide: "Do you ever see Star Wars merchandise and go, 'Man, I've got to
have that!'"
George Lucas: "There's stuff that comes through my office and I say, 'This
is great. I'd like to have one of these.' But I don't have a lot of Star Wars
stuff. One of our employees [at Lucasfilm] has a huge collection. I've never
seen it, but he has a whole warehouse that he's rented just to hold all his
Star Wars things. My favorite personal item is something that came out with the
original movie. I think it was the very first licensing thing we ever did, a
little clay Wookiee mug. Chewbacca sits on my desk and holds my pencils.
There's very little else I have, and we don't really have a lot of it around my
house. My son has a few things, but he's probably got more of other kinds of
things than he has Star Wars toys. I mean, he has them, but like any other
parent, I'm not going to let him go wild [buying SW toys]. There's only so much
I can afford.">>
This is dumb, not only can he afford it, he can get it for free. He's being
falsely modest. He should just say, "I don't let him have it because I want to
raise him right, and not spoiled."
<<TV Guide: "Does he [your son] have a lightsaber?"
George Lucas: "No, I won't let him have a lightsaber. No lightsabers and
no pistols."
TV Guide: "Too violent?"
George Lucas: "Well, too easy for him to get into trouble with it and
knock things over.">>
Doesn't sound like a pc excuse, just sounds like his anal retentive about
keeping his stuff unbroken.
As for your last point about Lucas's candid remarks, it really didn't mean
anything to me.
--
Aaron Snyder
asn...@mail.usmo.com or ams...@aol.com
Visit my homepage: http://www.angelfire.com/pe/aaronthegreat
"I weigh about 140 pounds, naked. I mean, if that scale at the train station
is anything to go by." -Emo Phillips
M. Harris
> << Subject: Why N'Sync's Cameo Is Least of Ep. II's Problems
> From: cine...@aol.comNoSpam (James W. King)
AMSNYD (pronounced "am-snid") quoting JWK's posting style. That made
about as much sense as a Japanese VCR manual. No offense. :P
Daniel Olin Miller
> ...adept at adapting...
I nominate this the Soup du Jour.
Daniel O. Miller
Here in my car,
The image breaks down,
Will you visit me please,
If I open my door,
In cars...
Cryofax
you did get me to laugh out loud over the "Jedi Pop n' Lock" routine
statement....
- Cryo
"James W. King" <cine...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
news:20020128042203...@mb-cs.aol.com...
James W. King
Excerpt from the Jan. 28 A&E Biography on"George Lucas: Creating an Empire":
Biography Narrator Harry Smith: "After three years of back-breaking work,
Star Wars was finally finished. It looked and sounded like no other movie. Yet,
the question loomed: Would it find an audience?". . . .
Harry Smith (in on-site interview): "You're screening this [rough cut] of
your movie for your friends -- and what do they say?"
George Lucas: "The Old Famous Screening: Well, I showed it to a group of
my friends, some of whom felt sorry for me, saying, 'Oh gee, that's too bad,
George.' And some of them said, 'This is the worst thing I've ever seen!' And
some of whom said they liked it."
Steven Spielberg: "And later on when he and I were together, you know,
George said, 'I think that I've just made a kid's movie. I think this is not
going to fly' (so to speak). And I said, 'It's going to be a big hit.' And
George said, 'How much do you think it's gonna make?' I said, "I think it'll
make 50-60 [million dollars at the box office]. And George said, "Yeah? Well, I
think it'll make 15-25 [million dollars]. Wow! Boy, were we wrong! (laughs)"
_________________________
James King: "Now wait a minute: Since late May 1999, George Lucas' latter-day
revisionist history has been that Star Wars was 'always intended to be a series
of children's movies.' Therefore, in light of what Lucas said to Spielberg
above in spring 1977, why would George have ever expressed fears about his
first Star Wars film inadvertently turning out to be a kiddie flick if he had
intended Star Wars as as a children's movie all along? Could it be that (Gasp!)
Spielberg's candid remark only underscored the now-sealed-in-carbonite fact
that Lucas targeted the Original-Trilogy Star Wars films as
universal-age-appeal movies for '12-year-olds of all ages' (i.e. adults, teens,
children -- all age groups across the board) and not primarily for the literal
chronological-12-years-old-and-under set?"
M. Harris (<A
HREF="mailto:mha...@MAPSONcliffhanger.com">mha...@MAPSONcliffhanger.com</A>):
"I have nothing to add to this except to say I caught Spielberg's remark too
and it made me chuckle. It's pretty obvious that the first trilogy was
intended for all ages, so all this business about them being made for kids is
bogus."
David A. McIntee (<A
HREF="mailto:david....@btopenworld.com">david....@btopenworld.com</A>):
"I think people see confusion between something made for kids but intended to
suit everyone, and something intended *only* for kids."
There is NO confusion. By film-marketing definition, a children's film's
content is both written for and marketed to target and appeal primarily to the
literal-chronological 12-years-of-age-and-under set. Children's movies are not
filmed to suit or appeal to all ages.
Even PG-rated family films are notorious for skewing toward appealing to
the lowest-intellectual-common-denominator of children and younger people.
David A McIntee: "Stuff like the original Holy Trilogy is the best kind of
kids' movie -- just like, say, 'The (original) Love Bug,' 'Wallace And Gromit,'
'Mousehunt,' etc."
No, it is evident from Lucas' 1977 remarks to Steven Spielberg that what he
*feared*was that he might have inadvertently created a kid's movie instead of a
universal-age-appeal movie. After all, a universal-age-appeal movie does NOT
dumb down its content and themes to target or appeal to any one demographic age
group.
Before they converted into more kid-friendly Special Editions, the films of
the Original SW Trilogy were more comparable to the universal-age-appeal movies
of Ray Harryhausen like "Jason and the Argonauts," "Mysterious Island," "First
Men in the Moon," "The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad," "The Golden Voyage of
Sinbad," "The Valley of Gwangi" and "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger."
Comparably speaking, "The Phantom Menace" is to the Original SW Trilogy
what the original "SuperFriends" cartoon series is to the new Justice League
animated series on The Cartoon Network.
-- James King
James W. King
HREF="mailto:jc12...@jcu.edu.au">jc12...@jcu.edu.au</A>): "You can't target
the general audience without targeting the under 12s. If it's not appropiate
False issue. By virtue of both its content (including its intellectual
approach to its material) and marketing, universal-age-appeal films ARE
INCLUSIVE OF ALL AGES and therefore include children in their targeting of
general audiences. Such does not hold true for children's movies whose content
and approach are targeted to appeal primarily to the literal-chronological
12-years-old-and-under set.
-- James King
Phillip A. Kallas
"Daniel Olin Miller" <dmil...@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.33.020128...@roger.ecn.purdue.edu...
> On 28 Jan 2002, James W. King wrote:
>
> > ...adept at adapting...
>
> I nominate this the Soup du Jour.
I don't think I have ever been this entertained in my life.
--
Phillip A. Kallas, to the X-treme
"I don't know John Zook that well, but I think he's going to do a great
job." -Tony Dungy, Indianapolis Colts Head Coach
James W. King
James King: "Q: How much darker is Episode II going to be compared with 'The
Phantom Menace'?"
a. A little darker
b. Somewhat darker
c. Much darker
d. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of the two
Ewok TV movies
e. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "Return
of the Jedi"
f. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "The
Empire Strikes Back"
James King: "At last, there is a confirmed and verified answer to that
question, provided in November 2001 by none other than George Lucas himself.
The answer
is 'a' [A little darker]."
> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
TV Guide: "'The Empire Strikes Back' was a second act in a three-act
story. By its very nature it was darker. Can we expect that of 'Episode II:
Attack of the Clones'?"
George Lucas: "What happens, I'm afraid, is that this one does get a
little darker. Episode III [scheduled for release in 2005] is the darkest of
them all."
TV Guide: "Are you concerned you will lose younger movie-goers if it's too
dark?"
George Lucas: "Well, the story is the story. It was the same thing with
'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best of the movies,
[but] it was the least popular of the first three."
______________________________________
David A McIntee (<A
HREF="mailto:david....@btopenworld.com">david....@btopenworld.com</A>):
"Darker than what? TPM or ESB? It can be read either way."
Oh puh-leeze! The reporter's question is not the least bit
misunderstandable. He noted that "The Empire Strikes Back", the second act of
the Original Trilogy, had been darker than its first act, "A New Hope" (the
first Star Wars movie). By comparison, he asks if the Prequel Trilogy's second
act, "Attack of the Clones," would be darker than its first act, "The Phanton
Menace."
-- James King
AMSNYD
From: cine...@aol.comNoSpam (James W. King)
Message-id: <20020128180329...@mb-fz.aol.com>
_________________________
M. Harris (<A
HREF="mailto:mha...@MAPSONcliffhanger.com">mha...@MAPSONcliffhanger.com):
"I have nothing to add to this except to say I caught Spielberg's remark too
and it made me chuckle. It's pretty obvious that the first trilogy was
intended for all ages, so all this business about them being made for kids is
bogus."
David A McIntee: "Stuff like the original Holy Trilogy is the best kind of
kids' movie -- just like, say, 'The (original) Love Bug,' 'Wallace And Gromit,'
'Mousehunt,' etc."
James King: No, it is evident from Lucas' 1977 remarks to Steven Spielberg that
what he
*feared*was that he might have inadvertently created a kid's movie instead of a
universal-age-appeal movie. After all, a universal-age-appeal movie does NOT
dumb down its content and themes to target or appeal to any one demographic age
group.
Aaron Snyder:
I'm afraid James has you there. Lucas was "afraid" that he had made a kids
movie and c'mon, nothing agains Mousehunt and the other flicks you mentioned,
but Star Wars is in a different class than those. It ain't the Godfather,
granted, but it was a bit less, uh, silly than TPM (and that aweful Willow).
It had humor, but not the silly kiddie cartoony type humor. It's story also
was geared towards a larger, more universal audience. You won't find tons of
teens going to see Mousehunt. Now, it goes with out saying that children form
a large percentage (perhaps over 50%) of Star Wars's audience, but Star Wars is
not exclusive to their genre. TPM seemed to be more so exclusive to the
children's genre, though not totally (too much for many fans' tastes, however).
Now, on the flip side, it wasn't Lucas quoted as saying he was worried about
SW being a kids film, it was Spielberg who recalled it. That doesn't make a
solid case for condemning Lucas for this statement.
AMSNYD
From: M. Harris mha...@MAPSONcliffhanger.com
Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2002 10:21 AM
Message-id: <MPG.16bf28854...@news.west.cox.net>
28 Jan 2002 16:12:21 GMT : AMSNYD says...
> << Subject: Why N'Sync's Cameo Is Least of Ep. II's Problems
> From: cine...@aol.comNoSpam (James W. King)
AMSNYD (pronounced "am-snid")>>
Really? Sounds like a good pronounciation to me. Actually, you can just call
me Aaron.
<<quoting JWK's posting style. That made
about as much sense as a Japanese VCR manual. No offense. :P >>
LOL, I can see your point, sorry for the trouble. In the last post (with
frequent commenters) I used James King's quoting style, which is a lot clearer.
I'd say that I'd use it all the time, but I'll probably forget.
James W. King
_________________________
M. Harris (mha...@MAPSONcliffhanger.com): "I have nothing to add to this
except to say I caught Spielberg's remark too and it made me chuckle. It's
pretty obvious that the first trilogy was intended for all ages, so all this
business about them being made for kids is bogus."
David A McIntee: "Stuff like the original Holy Trilogy is the best kind of
kids' movie -- just like, say, 'The (original) Love Bug,' 'Wallace And Gromit,'
'Mousehunt,' etc."
James King: "No, it is evident from Lucas' 1977 remarks to Steven Spielberg
that
what he *feared*was that he might have inadvertently created a kid's movie
instead of a universal-age-appeal movie. After all, a universal-age-appeal
movie does NOT dumb down its content and themes to target or appeal to any one
demographic age group."
Aaron Snyder: "I'm afraid James has you there. Lucas was 'afraid' that he had
made a kids movie and c'mon, nothing against 'Mousehunt' and the other flicks
you mentioned, but Star Wars is in a different class than those. It ain't 'The
Godfather,' granted, but it was a bit less, uh, silly than TPM (and that awful
'Willow'). It had humor, but not the silly kiddie cartoony type humor. It's
story also was geared towards a larger, more universal audience. You won't
find tons of teens going to see 'Mousehunt.' Now, it goes with out saying that
children form a large percentage (perhaps over 50%) of Star Wars's audience,
but Star Wars is not exclusive to their genre. TPM seemed to be more so
exclusive to the children's genre, though not totally (too much for many fans'
tastes, however)."
I found a more definitive source which elaborates about Lucas' lamentative
fears that he had created a children's film instead of one with
universal-age-appeal.
> Excerpt from pages 334-335 of "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the
Sex-Drugs-and-Rock'n'Roll Generation Saved Hollywood" by Peter Briskin (1998,
Simon & Schuster Publishers, New York):
Lucas felt he was ready to screen Star Wars. The special effects weren't
finished, and George had cut in black-and-white dogfights from old World War II
films, but you got the general idea. Alan Ladd flew up to his home in San
Anselmo; it was the first time he would be seeing anything. De Palma,
Spielberg, Huyck and Katz, Cocks and Scorsese met at the Burbank airport. It
was foggy, and the flight to San Francisco was delayed.
When it finally took off, Scorsese wasn't on board. He was as nervous about
Star Wars as Lucas was about [Scorsese's] "New York, New York." He hated
flying, but Huyck and Katz though, "Well, he's very competitive. He really
didn't want to see it and didn't want to know about the film." As Scorsese puts
it, "You'd have the anxiety -- if its better than yours, or even it it isn't
better than yours, [because] you think it is [anyway]. And your friends will
tell you it is. And you believe it. For years."
The screening ended. There was no applause, just an embarrassed silence.
Without the effects, the picture looked ridiculous. Marcia [Lucas] was upset
and said, "It's the 'At Long Last Love' of science fiction. It's awful!" and
started to cry. Katz took her aside and warned her, "Shhh! Laddie's watching!
Marcia, look cheery."
George Lucas felt like he'd failed, that it [Star Wars] wouldn't cross over
to adults. He kept repeating, "Only kids -- I've made a Walt Disney movie, a
cross between 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' and 'The Computer Who
Wore Tennis Shoes.' It's gonna do maybe eight or ten million [at the box
office, barely recouping its production costs]." Several people just left, and
those tha remained went to eat at a Chinese restaurant. George was quiet in the
car, a little shell-shocked.
As he picked over his dumplings, George asked, "All right, whaddya guys
really think?"
Brian [De Palma] started in on him and was merciless, as George took notes.
In the cut they had seen, the Force was called "the Force of Others." Brian
said, "What's this 'Farts of Others'? And the crawl at the beginning [of the
film] looks like it was written on a driveway. It goes on forever. It's
gibberish." De Palma paused, looking at George to gauge the effect of his
words, before continuing, "The first act: Where are we? Who are the fuzzy guys?
Who are these guys dressed up like the Tin Man from Oz? What kind of movie are
you making here? You left the audience out -- you've vaporized the audience.
They don't know what's going on." He attacked Lucas for making an obscure movie
that only pretended to be accessible.
Recalls Katz, "Brian wouldn't let up. He was out of control. He was like a
crazed dog. Marcia was getting angry at Brian, and she never forgot."
George needled Brian in return. "You should talk! None of your films have
made a dime. At least I've made some profit."
They tried to re-write the crawl so it made sense. "You gotta drop the Jedi
Bendu shit. Nobody's gonna know what you're talking about," continued De Palma,
relentless. Katz thought, This is hopeless. It's never going to make any sense.
George was ashen, but he was taking it all in and writing it all down.
Spielberg dissented, saying, "George, it's great. It's gonna make $100
million." In those days, almost nothing made $100 million. Katz thought, Steve
is a moron. Lucas said, "I promise you, 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind'
will make four to five times more than 'Star Wars'." Spielberg replied, "No,
no, George, this time, I've made the esoteric science fiction movie and you've
made the crossover one." They made a bet with each other on the relative box
office of "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters," wrote the figures down on
matchbook covers and traded them.
That night, Ladd called Spielberg, "What do we have here?" he asked. "Is
'Star Wars' going to be any good? Is anybody ever going to come see this
movie?"
"It's gonna be a huge hit. You're gonna be the happiest film studio
executive in Hollywood."
"How huge is 'huge'?"
"At least $35 million in rentals. Maybe more."
__________________________________________________
Aaron Snyder (ams...@aol.com): "Now, on the flip side, it wasn't Lucas quoted
as saying he was worried about SW being a kids film, it was Spielberg who
recalled it. That doesn't make a solid case for condemning Lucas for this
statement."
The other information I supplied above makes the case in flying colors.
Moreover, in light of his post-1995 efforts to convert Star Wars into a
series of children's films -- a conversion which he was reluctant to openly
acknowledge until late May 1999, nearly two weeks after the release of "The
Phantom Menace" -- why would you believe that George Lucas would be candid
enough to admit having made such a statement in the first place?
That's the sort of statement that he would be most likely to sweep quite
vigorously under the carpet and not even admit it's there, no matter how lumpy
that already-lumpy rug gets.
If he continues to follow his disingenuous SW/TPM-as-children's-movies
mantra, Lucas would be saying instead, "Oh, Steven had it backwards: Based on
my friends' reactions to that rough cut, I was afraid that I had created too
inaccessible a film of 'Star Wars' that it might not cross over and appeal to
children."
-- James King
John Savard
wrote, in part:
> George Lucas: "Well, the story is the story. It was the same thing with
>'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best of the movies,
>[but] it was the least popular of the first three."
> Apparently, by his opinion that "The Empire Strikes Back" is the least
>popular of the Original Trilogy, George Lucas equates the popularity of a movie
>moreso to the bottom line of its box-office profits than to its actual artistic
>merits and storyline quality and integrity.
Look up "popular" in a dictionary. Lucas is right.
> Get this: Lucas now blames the media for creating the notion of his
>original master vision of a nine-episode Star Wars film series!
Yes, this notion was based on a purported plot outline leaked to the
press, which was likely spurious. Or so I thought...
> In his August 1977 Rolling Stone magazine interview, it was none other than
>George Lucas himself who spelled out his master vision of a "trilogy of
>trilogies," nine episodes. What's more, he even entertained the notion of a
>*fourth trilogy,* Episodes 10-12, which he speculated would be more "ephemeral"
>in nature, revolving around a Jedi quest story of some sort.
>
> So, is George Lucas insinuating that that Rolling Stone reporter put words
>in his mouth in August 1977?
This is news to me.
Of course, he may have made changes during ESB and Jedi that make a
third trilogy now impossible or unnecessary.
> George Lucas: "The Old Famous Screening: Well, I showed it to a group of
>my friends, some of whom felt sorry for me, saying, 'Oh gee, that's too bad,
>George.' And some of them said, 'This is the worst thing I've ever seen!' And
>some of whom said they liked it."
Well, it *did* use "every cliche in the book", as it were. However,
all those cliches had actually been unused for so long, they were
fresh again.
James W. King
made about as much sense as a Japanese VCR manual. No offense. :P "
Aaron Snyder (<A HREF="mailto:ams...@aol.com ">ams...@aol.com</A>): "LOL, I
can see your point, sorry for the trouble. In the last post (with frequent
commenters) I used James King's quoting style, which is a lot clearer. I'd say
that I'd use it all the time, but I'll probably forget."
Thanks, Aaron, but I can hardly take credit for the acclaimed Montague
Method of Post Quoting. :)
Those kudos should instead go to the Montague Institute. Check 'em out at:
http://www.montague.com/review/buckman.html
http://www.montague.com/three.html
http://www.montague.com/default.htm
-- James King
David A McIntee
"James W. King" <cine...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote > No, it is evident from
Lucas' 1977 remarks to Steven Spielberg that what he
> *feared*was that he might have inadvertently created a kid's movie instead
of a
We only have an interpretation of Spielberg's 20-year old memory for that.
> Before they converted into more kid-friendly Special Editions, the
films of
> the Original SW Trilogy were more comparable to the universal-age-appeal
movies
> of Ray Harryhausen like "Jason and the Argonauts," "Mysterious Island,"
"First
> Men in the Moon," "The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad," "The Golden Voyage of
> Sinbad," "The Valley of Gwangi" and "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger."
Those are kids movies as far as I'm concerned - or maybe it's a cultural
thing, as these are definitely treated as such over here.
David A McIntee
"James W. King" <cine...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote >
> misunderstandable. He noted that "The Empire Strikes Back", the second act
of
> the Original Trilogy, had been darker than its first act, "A New Hope"
(the
> first Star Wars movie). By comparison, he asks if the Prequel Trilogy's
second
> act, "Attack of the Clones," would be darker than its first act, "The
Phanton
> Menace."
No, he asks if Lucas is worried about losing viewers. Lucas' answer is
"Well, the story is the story. It was the same thing with
'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best of the
movies,
[but] it was the least popular of the first three."
Do you read what you posted?
James W. King
> James King: "Q: How much darker is Episode II going to be compared with
'The Phantom Menace'?"
a. A little darker
b. Somewhat darker
c. Much darker
d. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of the two
Ewok TV movies
e. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "Return
of the Jedi"
f. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "The
Empire Strikes Back"
> James King: "At last, there is a confirmed and verified answer to that
question, provided in November 2001 by none other than George Lucas himself.
The answer is 'a' [A little darker]."
> David A McIntee (david....@btopenworld.com): "Darker than what? TPM or
ESB? It [Lucas' interview comment] can be read either way."
James King: "Oh puh-leeze! The reporter's question is not the least bit
misunderstandable. He noted that 'The Empire Strikes Back', the second act of
the Original Trilogy, had been darker than its first act, 'A New Hope' (the
first Star Wars movie). By comparison, he asks if the Prequel Trilogy's second
act, 'Attack of the Clones,' would be darker than its first act, 'The Phanton
Menace.'"
David A McIntee: "No, he asks if Lucas is worried about losing viewers."
No, the reporter asks if Lucas is worred about losing *younger viewers if it
[Episode II] gets too dark.* Moreover, he drew the comparison between the
Original and Prequel Trilogies' second acts in apparent hope of getting Lucas
to compare and contrast their tone and content.
David A McIntee: "Lucas' answer is: 'Well, the story is the story. It was the
same thing with 'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best
of the movies, [but] it was the least popular of the first three.'"
But to understand that follow-up statement by Lucas in proper context, you
cannot dismiss or leave out that preceeded it:
> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
TV Guide: "'The Empire Strikes Back' was a second act in a three-act
story. By its very nature it was darker. Can we expect that of 'Episode II:
Attack of the Clones'?"
George Lucas: "What happens, I'm afraid, is that this one does get a
little darker. Episode III [scheduled for release in 2005] is the darkest of
them all."
TV Guide: "Are you concerned you will lose younger movie-goers if it's too
dark?"
George Lucas: "Well, the story is the story. It was the same thing with
'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best of the movies,
[but] it was the least popular of the first three."
______________________________________
David A McIntee: "Do you read what you posted?"
Indeed, I do. Next time, however, you might try following your own implied
advice.
-- James King
David A McIntee
"James W. King" <cine...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote
Oh, I see- you're one of those people who changes the point of your posts
each time.
And therefore too narrow minded to waste time conversing with.
BTW, losing "younger" viewers still means nothing in your imaginary context-
lots of kids go accompanied to theaters. If they don't go, their
accompaniers aren't going either.
I don't believe I'm typing on a wrecked shoulder just to respond to a
tunnel-visioned obsessive like you
I think "Plonk" is the usual thing
C'Pi
"David A McIntee" <david....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:a365pp$15sb4v$1...@ID-104854.news.dfncis.de...
That didn't take long.
C'Pi
Skuzz the Merciless
"C'Pi" <jas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a366bh$1550bv$1...@ID-111793.news.dfncis.de...
I wonder if this makes him a Nazi or a Taliban supporter...
--
Skuzz the Merciless
>
> C'Pi
>
>
C'Pi
"Skuzz the Merciless" <skuzzthemerci...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:uDz58.671$M5....@jekyl.ab.tac.net...
Regardless, he's off to Andersonville.
C'Pi
Galactic Boobies
We've always got room for one more here in the village of the damned.
> C'Pi
Jade
--
What ever happened to Roy anyway?
:-/
"Galactic Boobies" <jad...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:_nC58.22160$ff5.3...@news02.optonline.net...
>
> We've always got room for one more here in the village of the damned.
>
minds think alike.
Paula
Galactic Boobies
":-/" <m...@yourmoms.house> wrote in message
news:sJC58.3157$hN7.99...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Indeed! Although James would like all of us if it wasn't for Rich and his
diabolically insane views on Fidonet.
Thanks a lot Rich! We could have been Jameses friends! You've damned us all
to Andersenville.
Jade
--
Why won't you admit your hypocracy, Rich, why?
David A McIntee
"Skuzz the Merciless" <skuzzthemerci...@hotmail.com> wrote > I
wonder if this makes him a Nazi or a Taliban supporter...
Oh, I remember now, JWK's the one who thinks than a) Star Wars and b)
everyone who disagrees with him, is a racist, right? I'd forgotten that in
my two year or so absence...
I guess that makes me a Nazi then.
Big smile. Big smile.
David A McIntee
Shall I just change my name to Angeleyes?
:-/
Paula
Tucci
>diabolically insane views on Fidonet. Thanks a lot Rich! We could have
>been Jameses friends! You've damned us all to Andersenville.
>Jade
Okay, I admit my hypocracy. :)
Rich Handley
Spam Avoider
Tucci
>Paula
I know. It usually is.
Rich Handley
Spam Avoider
James W. King
for one more here in the Village of the Damned."
Paula: "This place is really getting crowded :) That's a good thing! Great
minds think alike."
Jade: "Indeed! Although James would like all of us if it wasn't for Rich and
his diabolically insane views on Fidonet."
While I don't exactly buy the first half of your statement above, I would
tend to agree with the latter part albeit not exactly to the extent that you
characterize it.
In November when I was still weighing the authenticity (or lack thereof) of
Pol's "group hug" remarks about me, I was astounded that Rich Handley would be
so disingenuous as to make a public apology to me that covered only his most
recent professed offenses to me.
> Subject: I apologize to James W. King
> From: rhan...@optonline.net (Rich Handley)
> Date: Thu, Nov 08, 2001 9:50 PM
> Message-id: <3beb50e6....@news.optonline.net>
If it will restore peace to the galaxy, then I throw the white flag up
and apologize for any comments I've made of late that might have
offended James. No more flames from me. I've extinguished my jets.
_____________________________________________
So, yes indeed, I did find it ludicrous for Rich Handley to have made such a
half-hearted gesture, apologizing only for his most recent remarks without
regard for all his other prior offenses. A half-apology just doesn't cut it.
As to whether Rich might also have been indirectly apologizing for those
other prior offenses as well, I can't hazard a guess. Time, as well as his
words and deeds in the future, will tell, I guess.
Jade (apparently in mock-sarcasm mode): "Why won't you admit your hypocracy,
Rich, why?"
In case you guys aren't familiar with the rhetorical form of confrontation
used in debates and politics which are employed to expose the weaknesses of an
opponent's arguments, to ridicule his hypocrisy and/or appeal to him to cease
being a hypocrite, concede a point or do the right thing, I present an example
of the Challenger Question here below.
> Friday, January 25, 2002 Press Release by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids:
WHY IS REP. TODD AKIN SPONSORING LEGISLATION THAT PROTECTS BIG TOBACCO INSTEAD
OF OUR KIDS?
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
today criticized U.S. Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) for sponsoring legislation that
does more to protect the tobacco industry than the American public.
Akin is one of only 17 Members of Congress who have sponsored H.R. 2180, a
tobacco regulation bill sought by the nation's largest tobacco company, Philip
Morris, and introduced by U.S. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA). Altogether, the 17
supporters of the bill have received over $215,000 in tobacco campaign
contributions since 1997. Philip Morris donated $60,000 to the 17 in the 2000
election cycle alone. Rep. Akin accepted $9,500 in tobacco campaign
contributions in the 2000 election.
In a letter to Congress, the CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE KIDS, the American
Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung
Association stated: "In short, this bill, if enacted, would do more harm than
good. That is why every major public health organization in the country
opposes the bill." These groups say the bill would allow the tobacco companies
to continue marketing to kids and deceiving the public about their products. As
a result, more than 2,000 kids would continue to become addicted every day and
400,000 Americans would continue to die each year of tobacco-caused disease.
Public health groups support another bill, H.R. 1097, introduced by U.S.
Reps. Greg Ganske (R-IA), John Dingell (D-MI) and Henry Waxman (D-CA). Both
bills concern granting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to
regulate tobacco products. But public health groups say only the Ganske bill
would allow the FDA to restrict tobacco marketing and sales to kids and require
the reduction or elimination of harmful constituents in tobacco products.
"It is unfortunate that Congressman Akin has signed on to legislation that
protects the tobacco industry instead of our kids," said Matthew L. Myers,
President of the CAMPAIGN FOR TOBACCO-FREE KIDS. "We urge him to reconsider
this decision immediately and have his name taken off the bill."
"If current trends continue, 121,000 Missouri kids alive today will die
prematurely of tobacco-related illness. If Congressman Akin wants to help
reverse these trends, he should take his name off of Philip Morris' bill and
join us in supporting real FDA authority over tobacco. If he does, he can help
save lives, and Missouri's kids will be the winners instead of the tobacco
industry," Myers said.
To thwart effective public health policies, the tobacco industry has made
more than $19 million in campaign contributions at the federal level since
1997. Philip Morris has given the most of any tobacco company, including $3
million in unregulated "soft money" since 1999.
Contact: Joel Spivak or Michael Berman, 202-296-5469, both of the CAMPAIGN FOR
TOBACCO-FREE KIDS
___________________________________________
-- James King
James W. King
> James King: "Q: How much darker is Episode II going to be compared with
'The Phantom Menace'?"
a. A little darker
b. Somewhat darker
c. Much darker
d. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of the two
Ewok TV movies
e. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "Return
of the Jedi"
f. Equal to but not exceeding the darkness of "The
Empire Strikes Back"
>> James King: "At last, there is a confirmed and verified answer to that
question, provided in November 2001 by none other than George Lucas himself.
The answer is 'a' [A little darker]."
>> David A McIntee (david....@btopenworld.com): "Darker than what? TPM or
ESB? It [Lucas' interview comment] can be read either way."
> James King: "Oh puh-leeze! The reporter's question is not the least bit
misunderstandable. He noted that 'The Empire Strikes Back', the second act of
the Original Trilogy, had been darker than its first act, 'A New Hope' (the
first Star Wars movie). By comparison, he asks if the Prequel Trilogy's second
act, 'Attack of the Clones,' would be darker than its first act, 'The Phanton
Menace.'"
> David A McIntee: "No, he asks if Lucas is worried about losing viewers."
James King: "No, the reporter asks if Lucas is worred about losing *younger
viewers if it
[Episode II] gets too dark.* Moreover, he drew the comparison between the
Original and Prequel Trilogies' second acts in apparent hope of getting Lucas
to compare and contrast their tone and content."
David A McIntee: "Oh, I see- you're one of those people who changes the point
of your posts each time."
Perhaps you'd like to explain that comment of yours in light of the fact
that I cited our entire debate in progress whereas you didn't cite even one of
our prior quotes in your most recent rebuttal much less cite any of mine which
you claim to have been a change of point.
David A McIntee: "And therefore [you're] too narrow minded to waste time
conversing with."
And yet, you posted a follow-up message to mine just the same.
David A McIntee: "BTW, losing "younger" viewers still means nothing in your
imaginary context -- lots of kids go accompanied to theaters. If they don't go,
their accompaniers aren't going either."
That doesn't mean that their accompaniers have to be adults though. Besides
parents, accompaniers could be younger, the same age or older ('tween or teen)
friends, brothers, sisters, and/or relatives.
David A McIntee: "I don't believe I'm typing on a wrecked shoulder just to
respond to a tunnel-visioned obsessive like you. I think 'Plonk. is the usual
thing."
At least you could try "plonking" (bowing out of this debate) with more
style and dignity than slinking off so sullenly.
David A McIntee: "Lucas' answer is: 'Well, the story is the story. It was the
same thing with 'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best
of the movies, [but] it was the least popular of the first three.'"
James King: "But to understand that follow-up statement by Lucas in proper
context, you cannot dismiss or leave out that preceeded it:
> Excerpt from Michael Davis & Glenn Gaslin's interview with George Lucas in
the Nov. 24-30, 2001 edition of TV Guide:
TV Guide: "'The Empire Strikes Back' was a second act in a three-act
story. By its very nature it was darker. Can we expect that of 'Episode II:
Attack of the Clones'?"
George Lucas: "What happens, I'm afraid, is that this one does get a
little darker. Episode III [scheduled for release in 2005] is the darkest of
them all."
TV Guide: "Are you concerned you will lose younger movie-goers if it's too
dark?"
George Lucas: "Well, the story is the story. It was the same thing with
'The Empire Strikes Back.' A lot of people think it is the best of the movies,
[but] it was the least popular of the first three."
______________________________________
David A McIntee: "Do you read what you posted?"
James King: "Indeed, I do. Next time, however, you might try following your
own implied advice."
NO RESPONSE by David A McIntee (david....@btopenworld.com).
-- James King
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
> False issue. By virtue of both its content (including its intellectual
>approach to its material) and marketing, universal-age-appeal films ARE
>INCLUSIVE OF ALL AGES and therefore include children in their targeting of
>general audiences.
Agreed.
> Such does not hold true for children's movies whose content
>and approach are targeted to appeal primarily to the literal-chronological
>12-years-old-and-under set.
You're really saying that the whole politics/Palpatine/Darth Sidious thing
was aimed at kids?
It wasn't. Lucas made the split obvious, sure, and probably more obvious
then it should have been, but frankly, if you didn't notice the adult
content, may you are part of the under 12 target audience.
---
- Dug.
---
The Hand make The Shadows look like insects.
---
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
>"Paul "Duggy" Duggan" <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> wrote
>> > Now wait a minute: Since late May 1999, George Lucas' latter-day
>> >revisionist history has been that Star Wars was "always intended to be a
>series
>> >of children's movies."
>Much as I hate to play devil's advocate (except to see that girl get her kit
>off, and Al Pacino do some great rants), Lucas says this in the DVD
>commentary for TPM
That's fine. He just cites everything else, I'd like him to cite all of
his quotes.
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
> In November when I was still weighing the authenticity (or lack thereof) of
>Pol's "group hug" remarks about me, I was astounded that Rich Handley would be
>so disingenuous as to make a public apology to me that covered only his most
>recent professed offenses to me.
Because he was only apologising for actual offenses and not the previous
offenses that exist mainly in the dark corners of your mind, and,
unfortunately, your posts.
> So, yes indeed, I did find it ludicrous for Rich Handley to have made such a
>half-hearted gesture, apologizing only for his most recent remarks without
>regard for all his other prior offenses. A half-apology just doesn't cut it.
There were none. You were a freak back then.
Daniel Olin Miller
disabused of his charitable notions.
Daniel O. Miller
Here in my car,
The image breaks down,
Will you visit me please,
If I open my door,
In cars...
Daniel Olin Miller
Simon H. Lee
high-kicking electrons to spell out:
>By the way, does everyone have their bingo sheets ready?
Cow bingo?
--
______(-o-)___A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !____<*>__________
| __ "The Internet is where lunatics are
| (__ * _ _ _ _ internetworked worldwide at the speed of light.
| __)|| | |(_)| \ *This* is progress?" --J. Shinal
Daniel Olin Miller
> Daniel Olin Miller <dmil...@ecn.purdue.edu> choreographed a chorus line of
> high-kicking electrons to spell out:
> >By the way, does everyone have their bingo sheets ready?
>
> Cow bingo?
No, JWK bingo. Check Gooja.
("Cow bingo"? Where the hell did THAT come from?)
James W. King
HREF="mailto:dmil...@ecn.purdue.edu">dmil...@ecn.purdue.edu</A>): "Behold,
Disrupticus Rex! Nobody cares, Jimmy. Even Pol' has been disabused of his
charitable notions."
Pol "disabused of his charitable notions"????
Ha! I proved Pol's gesture of a group hug was entirely bogus and
counterfeit by my little experiment wherein I appeared to vanish from the
newsgroup just to see if there were any substance behind his words.
When an individual like Politicratus posts from behind an anonymous screen
name but expresses sentiment that appears to hold me in a modicum of esteem, it
would stand to reason that if his sentiment were genuine, at minimum, he
wouldn't have considered it going out of his way to send me but one private
email to inquire about my whereabouts when I appeared to vanish without
explanation from the newsgroup.
But not one private email did I receive from Pol. Not one.
Thus, I found Pol's group-hug sentiment to have been a condescendingly
empty gesture indeed.
-- James King
James W. King
their bingo sheets ready?"
Are you talking about your official Kingo(tm) card?
-- James King
James W. King
audience without targeting the under 12s. If it's not appropiate for them, than
it's for the over-twelve market. Think before you type."
James King: "False issue. By virtue of both its content (including its
intellectual approach to its material) and marketing, universal-age-appeal
films ARE INCLUSIVE OF ALL AGES and therefore include children in their
targeting of general audiences. Such does not hold true for children's movies
whose content and approach are targeted to appeal primarily to the
literal-chronological 12-years-old-and-under set."
Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "You're really saying that the whole
politics/Palpatine/Darth Sidious thing was aimed at kids?"
In scripting "The Phantom Menace," the primary audience whom Lucas was
consciously targeting for Episode I was children 12 years of age and younger.
That sort of narrow-age-group targeting naturally meant that the greater
majority of the movie's content had to appeal to that particular demographic
segment -- children. In that respect, Lucas deviated from his Original-Trilogy
formula of making the films universal-age-inclusive.
Since the meager politics/Palpatine/Darth Sidious stuff in TPM comprises a
significantly smaller portion of the entire movie, it didn't necessarily have
to appeal to children. At best, those scenes comprise a paltry few crumbs from
the table that Lucas tossed into the mix to hold older viewers' interests. At
worst, considering how we older viewers were now only getting mere crumbs, the
preview trailers of "The Phantom Menace" proved deceptive indeed since the
death of intelligent scripting in Episode 1 made it painfully obvious that it
only pretended to be accessible to us older viewers.
The best analogy to make is that the Original Trilogy was a banquet of
cinematic delights appropriate for and enjoyable by all ages. With Episode I,
however,, we older viewers discovered to our great dismay that Star War was no
longer a banquet with the type of food that all ages can savor but except for a
few token crumbs, Lucas was serving us older viewers the cinematic equivalent
of baby food -- pablum -- and worse yet, for all intents and purposes, Lucas
appeared to actually be expecting us to swallow it and say, "Yummy!" no matter
how awful and intelligence-insulting it tasted.
Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "[The whole politics/Palpatine/Darth Sidious thing wasn't
aimed at kids]. Lucas made the split obvious, sure, and probably more obvious
then it should have been, but frankly, if you didn't notice the adult content,
may you are part of the under-12 target audience."
False issue. A children's movie can have some mature content; however, that
mature content cannot comprise the greater majority of the movie because then
it would no longer be a legitimate kiddie flick.
On the other hand, an example of the reverse: Director Charles Laughton's
only directorial effort, the classic movie "Night of the Hunter," has two
children, a boy and girl ages 9 and 5 respectively, as its central characters.
The children have their childish concerns, but although the story revolves
around the plights of them both and some other children, the movie is neither a
kiddie flick nor a family film because the challenges facing the two children
invoke more mature themes. Because of its mature theme, the target audience for
"The Night of the Hunter" in the mid-'50s probably did not include younger
children. Its target audience was more of a PG-13 one. (If memory serves, the
film got a PG-13 rating when it was rated in the late '80s.)
So tell me, Paul, why exactly do you praise Lucas for excluding us older
folks (13 years of age and older) from the demographic equation in his
scripting Episode I (and quite possibly the other two Prequel episodes as well)
primarily for so narrow a demographic age group as children 12 years of age and
younger?
After all, Lucas' inclusive universal-age-appeal approach to scripting the
Original Trilogy SW movies captured the youth market without his having to
pander and dumb down their content.
-- James King
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
> In scripting "The Phantom Menace," the primary audience whom Lucas was
>consciously targeting for Episode I was children 12 years of age and younger.
While including a subplot that they wouldn't get. Therefore, >12
targeting, with elements to appeal to older viewers.
> At best, those scenes comprise a paltry few crumbs from
>the table that Lucas tossed into the mix to hold older viewers' interests.
Yes, they do seem that way, but they are, in reality, the most important
parts.
> The best analogy to make is that the Original Trilogy was a banquet of
>cinematic delights appropriate for and enjoyable by all ages.
I'll disagree on ANH and RotJ. ANH still appeals to the under 12 in me,
but as an adult it's meaningless. RotJ... come on, even you have to admit
that was the real start of the under 12 targeting.
> False issue. A children's movie can have some mature content; however, that
>mature content cannot comprise the greater majority of the movie because then
>it would no longer be a legitimate kiddie flick.
A legitimate kiddie flick contains no older material. They exist. Trust
me.
> So tell me, Paul, why exactly do you praise Lucas for excluding us older
>folks (13 years of age and older) from the demographic equation in his
>scripting Episode I (and quite possibly the other two Prequel episodes as well)
>primarily for so narrow a demographic age group as children 12 years of age and
>younger?
I didn't. You've been putting words into peoples mouths since you first
post here, please stop it.
And frankly, I new 10 - 14 year olds that loved Pokemon by the Star Wars
release was "boring". Now they are fans. A smart move, if not
necessarily good for the 8 year old who watched ANH 20 odd years ago.
> After all, Lucas' inclusive universal-age-appeal approach to scripting the
>Original Trilogy SW movies captured the youth market without his having to
>pander and dumb down their content.
Yeah, right. You watched RotJ lately?
James W. King
audience without targeting the under 12s. If it's not appropiate for them, than
it's for the over-twelve market. Think before you type."
> James King: "False issue. By virtue of both its content (including its
intellectual approach to its material) and marketing, universal-age-appeal
films ARE INCLUSIVE OF ALL AGES and therefore include children in their
targeting of general audiences. Such does not hold true for children's movies
whose content and approach are targeted to appeal primarily to the
literal-chronological 12-years-old-and-under set."
> Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "You're really saying that the whole
politics/Palpatine/Darth Sidious thing was aimed at kids?"
James King: "In scripting 'The Phantom Menace,' the primary audience whom
Lucas was consciously targeting for Episode I was children 12 years of age and
younger. That sort of narrow-age-group targeting naturally meant that the
greater majority of the movie's content had to appeal to that particular
demographic segment -- children. In that respect, Lucas deviated from his
Original-Trilogy formula of making the films universal-age-inclusive. Since the
meager politics/Palpatine/Darth Sidious stuff in TPM comprises a significantly
smaller portion of the entire movie, it didn't necessarily have to appeal to
children."
Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "While including a subplot that they wouldn't get.
Therefore, 12 targeting, with elements to appeal to older viewers."
You're making a distinction without any real difference. "The Phantom
Menace" is still a children's movie as Lucasfilm's own spokesperson Lynn Hale
only reluctantly admitted in late May 1999. It was not written with any
equitable balance to inclusively target or appeal to all ages. Its targeted
demographic was telescoped down to appeal to a more narrow segment of the
viewing audience, children 12 years of age and under.
James King: "At best, those [meager politics/Palpatine/Darth Sidious] scenes
comprise a paltry few crumbs from the table that Lucas tossed into the mix to
hold older viewers' interests.
Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "Yes, they do seem that way, but they are, in reality,
the most important parts."
Not necessarily to TPM's primary target audience, moviegoers 12 years of age
and younger.
Moreover, why should we older movie-viewers be content to settle for pablum
much less crumbs when we were eating fine age-appropriate food with the
Original Trilogy? Why should we older viewers take such offputtingly
differential treatment sitting down when many of us were the very ones who made
the Original Trilogy a hit at the theater box office during their original
release?
James King: "At worst, considering how we older viewers were now only getting
mere crumbs, the preview trailers of 'The Phantom Menace' proved deceptive
indeed since the death of intelligent scripting in Episode 1 made it painfully
obvious that it only pretended to be accessible to us older viewers."
Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "I'll disagree on ANH and RotJ. ANH still appeals to the
under 12 in me, but as an adult it's meaningless. RotJ... come on, even you
have to admit that was the real start of the under 12 targeting."
Actually, the Ewok TV movies were the real start of the primary targeting of
the 12-and-under viewing audience.
> James King: "The best analogy to make is that the Original Trilogy was a
banquet of cinematic delights appropriate for and enjoyable by all ages. With
Episode I, however,, we older viewers discovered to our great dismay that Star
War was no longer a banquet with the type of food that all ages can savor but
except for a few token crumbs, Lucas was serving us older viewers the cinematic
equivalent of baby food -- pablum -- and worse yet, for all intents and
purposes, Lucas appeared to actually be expecting us to swallow it and say,
'Yummy!' no matter how awful and intelligence-insulting it tasted."
> Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "[The whole politics/Palpatine/Darth Sidious thing
wasn't aimed at kids]. Lucas made the split obvious, sure, and probably more
obvious then it should have been, but frankly, if you didn't notice the adult
content, may you are part of the under-12 target audience."
James King: "False issue. A children's movie can have some mature content;
however, that mature content cannot comprise the greater majority of the movie
because then it would no longer be a legitimate kiddie flick.On the other hand,
an example of the reverse: Director Charles Laughton's only directorial
effort, the classic movie 'Night of the Hunter,' has two children, a boy and
girl ages 9 and 5 respectively, as its central characters. The children have
their childish concerns, but although the story revolves around the plights of
them both and some other children, the movie is neither a kiddie flick nor a
family film because the challenges facing the two children invoke more mature
themes. Because of its mature theme, the target audience for 'The Night of the
Hunter' in the mid-'50s probably did not include younger children. Its target
audience was more of a PG-13 one. (If memory serves, the film got a PG-13
rating when it was rated in the late '80s.)"
Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "A legitimate kiddie flick contains no older material.
They exist. Trust me."
False issue again. A kiddie flick is no less genuine a children's film even
if it does contain some mature content and/or themes. That children's films
exist without any such mature content and/or themes was never at issue. Indeed,
it is regrettable that many, if not most, children's movies with few if any
challenging themes are so saccharine and pander to children condescendingly, as
if they were dumb bunnies or babies.
James King: "So tell me, Paul, why exactly do you praise Lucas for excluding
us older folks (13 years of age and older) from the demographic equation in his
scripting Episode I (and quite possibly the other two Prequel episodes as well)
primarily for so narrow a demographic age group as children 12 years of age and
younger?"
Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "I didn't. You've been putting words into people's mouths
since you first posted here, please stop it."
What would you have me believe then? You certainly aren't making any
genuine appeals that us older viewers be accorded the same inclusive cinematic
dignity that we were given by Lucas when he scripted the Original Trilogy.
Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "And frankly, I knew 10-14 year olds that loved 'Pokemon'
by the Star Wars release was 'boring.' Now they are fans. A smart move, if not
necessarily good for the 8-year-old who watched ANH 20 odd years ago."
There you go again excluding all the rest of us, the movie-watching public
15 years of age and older, as if we were of no consequence! Sheesh!
So why do you want to exclude us, Paul?
James King: "After all, Lucas' inclusive universal-age-appeal approach to
scripting the Original Trilogy SW movies captured the youth market without his
having to pander and dumb down their content."
Paul "Duggy" Duggan: "Yeah, right. You watched RotJ lately?"
"Return of the Jedi" never insulted my intelligence or cinematic
sensibilities back then and still doesn't now. But then again, that's because
Lucas *was* including us older viewers too in his scripting-writing equation as
most-desired viewer back then because Star Wars was targeted to "12-year-olds
of all ages" back then, NOT primarily to the literal-chronological
12-years-old-and-under set.
In other words, *everybody of every age group* back then was a most-desired
viewer, bar none.
-- James King
Galactic Boobies
"James W. King" <cine...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
news:20020129204351...@mb-ct.aol.com...
>
> David A McIntee: "And therefore [you're] too narrow minded to waste time
> conversing with."
>
> And yet, you posted a follow-up message to mine just the same.
>
(This is where he casts out the troll line and delivers the set up)
>
> David A McIntee: "BTW, losing "younger" viewers still means nothing in
your
> imaginary context -- lots of kids go accompanied to theaters. If they
don't go,
> their accompaniers aren't going either."
>
> That doesn't mean that their accompaniers have to be adults though.
Besides
> parents, accompaniers could be younger, the same age or older ('tween or
teen)
> friends, brothers, sisters, and/or relatives.
>
(Beautiful! Here again the troll beleagers a point and coyly twists the
argument direction in order to anger and confuse his victim.)
>
> David A McIntee: "I don't believe I'm typing on a wrecked shoulder just
to
> respond to a tunnel-visioned obsessive like you. I think 'Plonk. is the
usual
> thing."
>
> At least you could try "plonking" (bowing out of this debate) with
more
> style and dignity than slinking off so sullenly.
>
(And the hook! Nice follow through by James on this troll. He's a real
artist. Now we'll see if his intended victim is smarter than the troll)
Jade
--
Stay tuned
Galactic Boobies
"James W. King" <cine...@aol.comNoSpam> wrote in message
You made the mistake of thinking anyone cared to hear your excruciatingly
long and convoluted side of the story yet again.
Sorry James, you won't be allowed to start a flame war over that skeleton
yet again.
Jade
--
<dial tone>
Simon H. Lee
high-kicking electrons to spell out:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Simon H. Lee wrote:
>
>> Daniel Olin Miller <dmil...@ecn.purdue.edu> choreographed a chorus line of
>> high-kicking electrons to spell out:
>> >By the way, does everyone have their bingo sheets ready?
>>
>> Cow bingo?
>
>No, JWK bingo. Check Gooja.
>
>("Cow bingo"? Where the hell did THAT come from?)
I was being random. And watching King of the Hill.
--
__ (-o-) <*> A L L D O N E! B Y E B Y E!
(__ * _ _ _ _
__)|| | |(_)| \ "Mmm... unexplained bacon."
Policrat'
> Behold, Disrupticus Rex! Nobody cares, Jimmy. Even Pol' has been
> disabused of his charitable notions.
Actually, I think he's raised some valid points ;)
> Daniel O. Miller
Pol'