Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I dont understand the Lucas hate. I mean, I understand not being happy with him for his ceaseless revisions to the films, and some poor choices made with the prequels, and the retcons to things that EU authors made, but it is his universe and setting, and without him none of it would exist.

And without his collaborators it would have been a much shittier universe that very few cared about. I'm sure you have seen the making of documentaries on the original trilogy, and know how much of it was changed by the directors/producers/actors involved. It wasn't developed in a vacuum until the prequels, and those are terrible. I agree that hate is to strong an emotion, though I do get it as people tend to get emotional when you stomp all over something they love with such disregard for both them and it. I think he is just a great producer and terrible at everything else involved in film making.

As they say, the Lucas giveth, and the Lucas taketh away again.

Which is why the authors of the EU should have seen this coming a mile away.

Didn't he direct THX 1138 and American Graffiti? Then again he could of got lucky and accidentally made good films.

He WAS a good director. The issue is he forgot that being a good director means accepting criticism and advice/input from those around you and not just having a vision.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Zhan still brought the god awful idea of Lucas's to life with his outline of the old republic and clone wars so it's still spitting (to me) on the author who revitalized your brand. Especially when Zhan probably had to fix the idea like so many of Lucas's writers/directors in the initial trilogy had to

But then again I pretty much loathe Lucas so I might be a bit biased.

Hey, no. The Old Republic's not so bad. KotOR II remains the best Star Wars story told, in no small part because it deconstructs Star Wars stories.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, or being unfair.

Original Indiana Jones trilogy. Spielberg and Lucas. Awesome.
Star Wars A New Hope. Spielberg and Lucas. Also awesome.
Empire Strikes Back. Irvin Kirshner. One of the best films ever.
Return of the Jedi. Some guy I don't know, plus Lucas. Good and bad parts.

Episodes 1-3 Almost entirely Lucas. Mostly pants.

Indiana Jones 4 - Lucas and Spielberg. Terrible

 Compel wrote:
Indiana Jones 4 - Lucas and Spielberg. Terrible

Lucas wanted the movie that we got and lobbied hard for it. Ford and Spielberg weren't keen on the Alien idea but eventually relented.

Steven Spielberg wrote:I sympathize with people who didn’t like the MacGuffin because I never liked the MacGuffin. George and I had big arguments about the MacGuffin. I didn’t want these things to be either aliens or inter-dimensional beings. But I am loyal to my best friend. When he writes a story he believes in – even if I don’t believe in it – I’m going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it. I’ll add my own touches, I’ll bring my own cast in, I’ll shoot the way I want to shoot it, but I will always defer to George as the storyteller of the Indy series. I will never fight him on that.

I’ll shoot the way I want to shoot it, but I will always defer to George as the storyteller of the Indy series. I will never fight him on that.

Should have fought him bro

 Seaward wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Zhan still brought the god awful idea of Lucas's to life with his outline of the old republic and clone wars so it's still spitting (to me) on the author who revitalized your brand. Especially when Zhan probably had to fix the idea like so many of Lucas's writers/directors in the initial trilogy had to

But then again I pretty much loathe Lucas so I might be a bit biased.

Hey, no. The Old Republic's not so bad. KotOR II remains the best Star Wars story told, in no small part because it deconstructs Star Wars stories.

Man I still wish that they could have had the time to truly complete the game.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I dont understand the Lucas hate. I mean, I understand not being happy with him for his ceaseless revisions to the films, and some poor choices made with the prequels, and the retcons to things that EU authors made, but it is his universe and setting, and without him none of it would exist.

And without his collaborators it would have been a much shittier universe that very few cared about. I'm sure you have seen the making of documentaries on the original trilogy, and know how much of it was changed by the directors/producers/actors involved. It wasn't developed in a vacuum until the prequels, and those are terrible. I agree that hate is to strong an emotion, though I do get it as people tend to get emotional when you stomp all over something they love with such disregard for both them and it. I think he is just a great producer and terrible at everything else involved in film making.

As they say, the Lucas giveth, and the Lucas taketh away again.

Which is why the authors of the EU should have seen this coming a mile away.

Didn't he direct THX 1138 and American Graffiti? Then again he could of got lucky and accidentally made good films.

I think it was because back then he couldn't go "Greenscreen dat schiz" or "we'll add all the stuff in with the effects" and actually had to have real sets, and real actors.

Lucas did decent when he didn't have all the money in the world. When he actually had to be creative to solve budgetary problems and take risks.* When you don't have much to work with, you have to be creative. It's the only way to make it work. You crash or you burn. When you have a gak ton of money, sure you can make something great, but damn do you stop really thinking in the same constrained terms.

*and no, there is a difference between taking a gamble, and just splooging on something that looks cool.

Victim of his own success in a roundabout manner??

As for Indy 4, my only issue with it was Shia LeWhatever

Hey, speaking of MacGuffins, that's something the EU loved to bring in that I really hope doesn't happen in the new trilogy. Something the Jedi and Sith are absolutely obsessed with in almost every single EU story featuring them is finding relics, usually because the Sith know it'll give them unlimited POWER!™ and the Jedi want it either so the Sith don't get it or so that they can use it for the powers of GOOD!™

It makes Palpatine look a bit weird in comparison - what with him relying on the non-force-related technology of the Death Star to rule the galaxy.

You do know that (by definition) 'MacGuffins' are common to pretty much *every* story/plot ever, right? Even those that were written before the term MacGuffin was created... complaining about MacGuffins in Star Wars is like complaining about that characters have names, its pointless.

Otherwise, yes, I do agree it seems a silly trope that keeps popping up in Star Wars, the ancient Sith/Jedi/Alien/Space Wizard relic/superweapon that will let evil conquer the galaxy... its like, seriously how many of these damned things do they just have lying around, and how are they never properly secured by a resource-rich government body BEFORE it becomes an issue?

I had to look up MacGuffin and i learned something this day!

chaos0xomega wrote:
You do know that (by definition) 'MacGuffins' are common to pretty much *every* story/plot ever, right? Even those that were written before the term MacGuffin was created... complaining about MacGuffins in Star Wars is like complaining about that characters have names, its pointless.

Not necessarily. MacGuffins are often lazy writing, not always, but often. They're oftne used as a call to action in place of any sort of character development, and then they end up being used in place of any plot development. Basically, a MacGuffin becomes a bad thing when in its role as an inanimate object it removes from characters their ability to act. The story becomes the story of the MacGuffin's tragic abuse at the hands of others, rather than the story of any particular character. As you might expect, its rather commonly used in this manner in a lot of pop fiction.

EDIT: Also, given how obviously common the MacGuffin is, the general plot line of any story revolving around one becomes ludicrously predictable.

Writing Tip #456; Use the MacGuffin at your own peril.

Almost *every* story has a plot device of some sort at some point in them that can be labeled as a MacGuffin, even going as far back as greek mythology, and those fethers knew how to tell a good story. A MacGuffin does not need to be a central point of a plot to be a MacGuffin, its only when the MacGuffin *IS* the central point of a plot that it becomes a serious issue.

I would argue, btw, that the Crystal Skull is not a MacGuffin, as a MacGuffin is defined as something that is otherwise interchangeable (in other words you can substitute 'microwave bean burrito' in for whatever it is and it will still tell the same story. If you recall, the crystal skull is utilized towards the end of the film by placing it on the err... statue corpse thing, resulting in some crazy gak... and not the sort of crazy gak that would happen with a microwave bean burrito. It only seems to be a MacGuffin due to poor writing (in my opinion) not making it clear what the impact of that event was on the characters, and possibly it also being due to the fact that the event was at the very end of the film not allowing for further character development/exposition, etc.

Really the Crystal Skull is no different than Ark in Raiders of the Lost Ark (in fact, the two might as well be the same film), and similar could *almost* be said of The Last Crusade. The only reason people are up in arms over the Crystal Skull is because Shia LeB... Beeeooof... Biff... Beuof... you know who I mean...

No, Crystal skull sucked, with or without "I am no longer famous" sack guy.

1. Refrigerator Nuclear Bunker!
2. fething Space Aliens in my Indiana Jones movie!
3. No nudity!

chaos0xomega wrote:
Really the Crystal Skull is no different than Ark in Raiders of the Lost Ark (in fact, the two might as well be the same film)

chaos0xomega wrote:
Almost *every* story has a plot device of some sort at some point in them that can be labeled as a MacGuffin, even going as far back as greek mythology, and those fethers knew how to tell a good story.

Even as a centerpoint, it's all an issue of handling. Take for example the typical video game MacGuffin; random ancient object that is found early in the story then taken by bad guy then heroes pursue badguy all over the place going through some typical plot points before they reach the end. Now, movies and games often get away with this. They only have 2-3 hours to tell a story (majority of game time is spent playing, not narrating) and often have to use lazy writing to expediate but that's fine because the plot is only part of a movie/game. There's also visuals and sound, and a good actor can turn a terrible plot into gold simply via charisma. Literature is another story and one where the flaws of the MacGuffin often become more problematic. Literature is almost pure narration, unmasked by anything else.

And as I often say when this comes up; just cause the Greek stuff is classic, doesn't mean following in their footsteps is a good idea. Otherwise every story would involve overtly mysoginist heroes raping women and then leaving them to die

I would argue, btw, that the Crystal Skull is not a MacGuffin, as a MacGuffin is defined as something that is otherwise interchangeable (in other words you can substitute 'microwave bean burrito' in for whatever it is and it will still tell the same story.

The crystal skull is interchangeable. It could have been any number of things. A tablet, a map, a rock, a statue, etc. Fundamentally, interchangeability is not critical to a MacGuffin imo anyway. A MacGuffin takes whatever is the most convenient form for the plot. What that is is kind of irrelevant to the MacGuffin's story role.

 Platuan4th wrote:
He WAS a good director. The issue is he forgot that being a good director means accepting criticism and advice/input from those around you and not just having a vision.

Peter Jackson was a good director until no one could tell him to cut the damn film anymore.

M. Night was a good director until he lost confidence following the reaction to Unbreakable.

Coppola gave us the Godfather movies and Apocalypse Now, and then later Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Good directors can lose their way...

The Star Wars team is thrilled to announce the cast of Star Wars: Episode VII.

Actors John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson, and Max von Sydow will join the original stars of the saga, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, and Kenny Baker in the new film.

Director J.J. Abrams says, "We are so excited to finally share the cast of Star Wars: Episode VII. It is both thrilling and surreal to watch the beloved original cast and these brilliant new performers come together to bring this world to life, once again. We start shooting in a couple of weeks, and everyone is doing their best to make the fans proud."

Star Wars: Episode VII is being directed by J.J. Abrams from a screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan and Abrams. Kathleen Kennedy, J.J. Abrams, and Bryan Burk are producing, and John Williams returns as the composer

 kronk wrote:
No, Crystal skull sucked, with or without "I am no longer famous" sack guy.

1. Refrigerator Nuclear Bunker!
2. fething Space Aliens in my Indiana Jones movie!
3. No nudity!

No, Raiders of the Lost Ark sucked, with or without *insert arbitrary actor here*.

1. Giant Rolling Stone Boulder of Doom!
2. fething Angelic Spirits in my Indiana Jones movie!
3. No nudity!

P.S. the nuclear fridge was Spielbergs idea.

And we are off.

I would like to see a larger version of the pic so that it is easier to see everyone. I can make out most of the original cast, but the new faces are harder to recognize.

Andy Serkis is the only name in that list I recognise (With the exception of the old guys, of course). Is it just me being out of touch, or have they really just gone an started making a film with complete unknowns?

I mean, do they really expect this to ride on the title and old actors alone?

Save Harrison Ford, weren't most of the cast of the original films unknowns?

 reds8n wrote:

The Star Wars team is thrilled to announce the cast of Star Wars: Episode VII.

Actors John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, Oscar Isaac, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson, and Max von Sydow will join the original stars of the saga, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, and Kenny Baker in the new film.

Director J.J. Abrams says, "We are so excited to finally share the cast of Star Wars: Episode VII. It is both thrilling and surreal to watch the beloved original cast and these brilliant new performers come together to bring this world to life, once again. We start shooting in a couple of weeks, and everyone is doing their best to make the fans proud."

Star Wars: Episode VII is being directed by J.J. Abrams from a screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan and Abrams. Kathleen Kennedy, J.J. Abrams, and Bryan Burk are producing, and John Williams returns as the composer

Max Von Sydow. Cool I thought he was dead.
Andy Serkis? I have visions of Gollum as the Emperor.

chaos0xomega wrote:


No, Raiders of the Lost Ark sucked

I will come at you like a spider monkey on crack!

 reds8n wrote:

Huzzah! Good to see Peter Mayhew out and about. I understand he was sick for a while.

@LordofHats: I suppose they were, but that was when Star Wars was just an idea. These days, it's one of the most popular/well-known franchises around, with a huge company backing them. I'm not says that unknown actors are poor (a lot of the time they're not).

My point is just that you'd have thought they'd have got some bigger names involved with the huge clout behind the IP.

Paradigm wrote:Andy Serkis is the only name in that list I recognise (With the exception of the old guys, of course). Is it just me being out of touch, or have they really just gone an started making a film with complete unknowns?

About half are up and coming and the other half are new.

LordofHats wrote:Save Harrison Ford, weren't most of the cast of the original films unknowns?

Harrison wasn't even really known at the time. He was "antagonist in car" in American Graffiti. Remember he was doing a lumber project and called over to fill in, as Lucas knew him from the previous film, as they needed a third for the casting test of Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher, and well, everything went from there.

IDK, I think people inflat the value of big names. I mean, when's the last time Tom Cruise was in a great movie? Not a decent movie or a passable movie, but a truely great movie. Johnny Depp? I think big name actors have probably starred in more bombs than unknown actors XD

Big name actors aren't there because they're good they're there because they have big names. You cast them to suck people into seeing the film, not because they have talent (or you know w/e). Star Wars being the title is sufficient to suck people into the film, so at that point why bother with big name actors?

Yeah, there are only 1 or 2 of them that are out of nowhere which is reasonable. The two that are probably the Solo male kids have both got solid portfolios. Though the girl likely playing the Solo daughter is a complete unknown.

Meh, I'm happy with what are likely to be the main male kids so it's a step in the right direction. I mean, it's not the crew of the new Star Trek (which is pretty damn stellar cast wise) but it's got a shot.

And really most of the good actors in the right age band are busy already doing super hero movies or Star Trek

I also imagine having much of the orignal cast plus Max Von Sydow takes care of their big name quota and they can just focus on fresh faces instead of trying to find another 'name'. Plus it is Star Wars, it isn't like people are going to skip it because it doesn't have any superstars in it either way; the franchise is the big name.