 |
| "Heeeeeeeere's Maul-y!" |
When The Phantom Menace premiered, and for many years hence,
the one constant that everyone, even the haters, seemed to like was the new
villain, Darth Maul. His face was in more of the merchandise than even the main
characters. He was cool-looking, he was mysterious, he had…
Wait a minute…
Cool-looking, mysterious, has a unique weapon, had very
little screentime in the film before being killed off, was resurrected in EU
material, fans and merchandising seem to miss the point of his character
elevating it to be more important than it actually was…
Now THIS sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before?
 |
| "What's that? I can't hear you over all these beautiful women." |
I seem to recall there was another movie, something about
the striking back of some sort of Empire, that had a similar character in it
who had few lines, whose purpose was to simply be an obstacle, but because of
his design and demeanor was elevated to be many fans’ favorite character.
Parallels can easily be drawn between Darth Maul and Boba
Fett both in how they impact the Saga and how they impact on the fans. For all
intents and purposes, Darth Maul could be seen as the Boba Fett of the
Republic-era films.
Are they the same character? Certainly not. There are many
differences. But they do share a
commonality.
 |
| "Aside from this place, because, you know, EVERYONE has been here." |
George Lucas needed a Bounty Hunter to lead Vader to Han and
Leia, saw a character design from the Holiday Special that stuck out, and said “why
not?” Lucas needed a Sith Apprentice to establish Palpatine’s pawns and get
Qui-Gon out of the way, saw a rejected design for a senator, and said “why not?”
One of Lucas’ gifts seems to be coming up with minor villains
and side-characters that are infinitely more interesting than the heroes.
Grievous, Jabba, Watto, even the Tusken Raiders pop into people’s minds before
many of the main human cast. I know when I was a kid, I didn’t give a fig about
Luke, Han, and Leia – to me, the movie was about the Droids and Chewie.
 |
| "At last we will have...revenge..." |
But it did take me a while to warm up to Darth Maul
precisely because everyone was giving him the Boba Fett treatment, and my
confusion as to what made Boba so special was firmly cemented by that point.
Besides, all this Maul worshipping was, in my mind, taking the focus away from
the main hero of the picture – you know, that duck-billed clown?
 |
| "Yousa knowin' meesa showin' up sooner or later." |
The more I watched, however, the more I really came to
appreciate Maul and what he represented in a way I still at times struggle to
with Boba. And I came to even feel sort-of sorry for him, for he was closest to
Palpatine and in the end was just as disposable. Events of the following films
make it clear that if Obi-Wan hadn’t sliced him in half – one of the most
gruesome deaths of the Saga – Palpatine may have himself once he outlived his
usefulness. Treachery is, after all, the way of the Sith.
Plus, Doublesabers are cool. Impractical, but cool.
 |
| "AND I have ALL of my original limbs!" |
As a note to my regular readers, this
column will be officially bi-weekly for the next few months due to recent
developments in my personal life, so don’t worry – I haven’t disappeared, and I’m
still dedicated to bringing you the best pro-I-III commentary as often as I
can. May the Force be with you all.
Amen! :)
ReplyDeleteYeah Maul is the new Boba, with one big difference...I can understand more on WHY Maul became a favorite, he IS cool looking and the first time I saw TPM I really wanted to know more about him (as they say 'be careful what you wish for *sigh*)
AND he had the BEST ENTRANCE in TPM! I mean don't you just get chills when those doors open and Maul is standing there, and very slowly he looks up and 'Duel of the Fates' kicks in?
That is an awesome moment.
Boba never really did it for me, he always seemed to be just another generic bounty hunter and I didn't find him to be all that interesting to be honest with you, but Maul DEFINITELY captured my interest so I completely understand him becoming a fan favorite.
So I don't object to giving Maul more of a back-story for the fans that like him...however I DO think over the years since TPM came out, they overdid it personally.
Maul was never meant to be a major player in the Saga. As cool looking as he was his whole purpose was as you said: to be an obstacle for Obi-Wan to overcome, and to kill off Qui-Gon so that Obi-Wan has to train Anakin.
And once he does this then George gets rid of him because their is no further need for his character really, hence him being cut in two.
BUT because the fanboys love him so much and demanded MORE MAUL of COURSE the EU writers and makers of the Clone Wars just couldn't let Maul go and had to bring back *rolls eyes*.
Like they brought Fett back in the EU after he was very obviously killed in ROTJ (I don't see how you could come back after being swallowed by a Sarlac but anyway).
And while I like Maul I DO think all of this fan service, and all of these books about him...and there is ANOTHER book about Maul coming out this month! I DO think they are giving his character way way way more importance and attention then he was ever meant to have.
And now I sort of miss the days when I knew nothing about him and he was just a cool looking Sith Apprentice with a double bladed lightsaber as George created him to be.
Read my thoughts on the EU from a few weeks back to see what I think of that. And why I sigh at the current push to make an overarching canon.
DeleteI am afraid the new Star Wars Story Group is just going to mess things up more.
Deletegeorge lucas himself brought maul back!
ReplyDelete“I found it funny in The Phantom Menace when Darth Maul got cut in half,” Clone Wars supervising director Dave Filoni says. “I thought George was definitively saying to the fans, ‘There’s no way this character is coming back. This is not a Boba Fett/Sarlacc Pit situation where, because of fan love, Boba gets out of that thing any number of ways.’ Fast-forward ten-years, and I’m the one to bring Maul back.”
Well, mostly. Filoni acknowledges that the order to resurrect the Sith Lord came from George Lucas himself, who became more interested in his Phantom Menace creation while developing Savage Opress for the last season of The Clone Wars.
http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/10/12/star-wars-clone-wars-darth-maul/
That is true. I did forget about that. George has always worked with "Rule of Cool", and while the decision still smacks of fanservice, the episodes themselves were handled better than anyone could expect.
DeleteI didn't know it was George who made the call to bring Maul back. Like Nilbog said it just seemed like one of those things that the EU writers etc would do to please the throng of Maul Worshipers.
DeleteBut if George was the one doing the fanboying then I can't complain because we can be pretty self assured that if George wanted to bring Maul back it was because HE liked the character, and HE wanted to use him again. The one thing I've always admired about George, the thing that always has made me respect him more then any other filmmaker in the industry today is that he never sacrifices his vision in order to please his public.
He wouldn't bring Maul back just to please us, rather he'd do it to please himself...that's what I like about him. And that's why so many so called 'Star Wars Fans' hate him because he doesn't bow down to their demands.
Too many artists today are way too scared to go against their fans, George has never been one of them. He has never once sold out, or changed something in one of his films that he didn't want to change. When you watch the Star Wars Saga you always knew in the past that you were entering George's world and nobody else's, sadly with the new films we can no longer say that but anyway.
I still think bringing Maul back is a case of major fanservice...but if it's George who's doing the fanservice to himself...then hey bring Maulsy back! He is a cool character after all (much cooler then bucket head lol).
It is indeed well known that Lucas himself was behind Maul's return in TCW.
DeleteDave Filoni is far from the archetypal tie-in writer hack. I consider him to be my favourite person to have got involved in SW after Lucas. Not only is he highly competent as an animator, but he has demonstrated repeatedly that he truly gets the PT and its themes. From TCW's fleshing out of the Separatists' motivations and the political conflict, to its embellishment of the clone troopers' doctrine and its treatment of characters like Anakin, Obi-Wan and Padme, TCW really does feel like a hypothetical Star Wars: Episode 2.5. It respects the setting and the source material. It's the gold standard for tie-in media, SW or otherwise, in my view.
It's testament to the character's strength that even those who dislike TPM continue to hold Maul in high regard. Ray Park's martial arts work was a crowd-pleasing spectacle back in 1999, and it obviously left a big impression.
DeleteLike how Boba Fett's appeal came from his resemblance to Spaghetti Western anti-heroes and antagonists, Darth Maul's probably came from a genre to which SW owed a lot but wasn't really a full part of: the East Asian martial arts action films and anime shows. He looks like a ninja, his weapon is almost like a bo staff, and he has a fast, aggressive combat style that wouldn't seem too out of place in a wuxia movie. Given the media environment of the time (anime was continuing to become ever more popular in the 1990s and 2000s), it's no surprise that Maul left such a mark. He was the sort of badass action villain that appealed to the contemporary tastes.
I don't mean this as a slam at all. But I think the reason Lucas brought Maul back in TCW was mostly marketing tie in with the re-release of TPM in 3D. You can't blame wanting the show to help promote the re-release of the film. However TCW series has contradicting the films many times before Maul showed back up. Maul even acts differently in TCW that he does in TPM.
DeleteNot too differently. It doesn't contradict what we see in the film really. It may have started out as a marketing idea, but George and the CW team put a lot of effort into it artistically.
Delete"I didn't know it was George who made the call to bring Maul back. Like Nilbog said it just seemed like one of those things that the EU writers etc would do to please the throng of Maul Worshipers.
DeleteBut if George was the one doing the fanboying then I can't complain because we can be pretty self assured that if George wanted to bring Maul back it was because HE liked the character, and HE wanted to use him again."
This is a somewhat absurd position to take- "well, if it was x writer, then they only did it for the fans, but if it was Lucas, he DEFINITELY only did it for himself!" I mean, come on, now. We can't really presume either parties' motivations and reasonings for returning to the character (bar them explicitly telling us), and being that cynical of normal writers while being completely trusting in Lucas is massively unfair.
You'd normally be right, except George is the creator.
DeleteThe creator, being the one who created the piece in the first place, should naturally get some sort of benefit of the doubt.
Does it always pay off? No, but stilll.
I agree that George and the writers did put some work into Maul's return, even though they didn't fully explained how he did survive. In TPM, it is pretty clear Maul is dead, as his limp body frails down the shaft. Granted Maul is a alien and could have a different organ layout not making the cut in half lethal for him. But he still looks pretty darn dead falling down that shaft.
DeleteTCW has contradicted the films before Maul. Probably the most glaring example is the redesign of the LAAT gunships. They were clearly aircraft in the films, not designed for space flight. However the series redesigned them to seal up and be able to fly in space and lack side turrets. Yet they go back to being open air, aircraft in ROTS.
Since Lucas is the creator of Star Wars, he has the right to change it as he sees fit, even to contradict himself which sometimes can be annoying.
"The creator, being the one who created the piece in the first place, should naturally get some sort of benefit of the doubt."
DeleteAh, but this is still an odd line to draw. After all, wouldn't the writers of TCW be 'creators' of that work themselves, with the writers/animators of the individual episodes 'creators' of those stories? Yeah, I get the point you're making (Lucas is the 'creator' of "the world" (despite, in this case, the truly iconic bits of Maul coming from the design department and not necessarily from Lucas himself) and thus he supersedes other creators), but what it still boils down to is giving some creators a pass while being really skeptical of other creators, based on rather unfounded presumptions.
Not so much creators but finishers of Lucas's ideas. Lucas had alot of input on the show.
DeleteGeez, every time Lucas is involved with something, everyone else is just "finishers" of his ideas.
DeleteAgain, I'm not going to deny the man credit where he's due (and he's due much more than people tend to give him), but *man* we need to start edging away from that sort of attitude.
Just because you do not like reality of something does not invalidate it. Even the very idea of a show was Lucas.
DeleteEven so, immediately defaulting to "Lucas = innovator, everyone else = 'finisher of his ideas'" is a dangerous and inaccurate viewpoint that robs other people of their creative innovation.
DeleteLet's compare this with a building. Lucas would be the chief architect, the writers/animators would be loke the brick layers and painters. In such a case it would be bad for if a brick layer desides not to follow the blueprints and goes the way he thinks is best. It is up to the chief architect to decide any changes or revisions to the blueprints.
ReplyDeleteBetter analogy would be commissioner/architects. The way you say it it's as if they have no creative thought of their own.
DeleteThat is sort of a srawman argument Hartwell, my analogy doesn't imply such people lack creative thoughts. But they do have to follow guidelines and are working on someone else's project. However your analogy implies Lucas being a commissioner doesn't have any creative thoughts which makes it invalid. Perhaps the writers/animators being akin to interior decorators is a better fit. Through laying bricks and painting takes skill and creative throught for troubleshooting.
DeleteNo, I don't think it's a strawman (what on Earth is people's addiction to that term)- bricklaying and painting are in of themselves rather workman jobs- you hire people to do them specific ways and they do them. It's not like they'll have any input on if the brick they're laying is really the best option out there, or even what color of paint to use. Their job is to follow the given blueprint, and they have little autonomy outside of that.
DeleteThe best analogy in the TV world for architects would be writers- maybe showrunners, but even they are writers themselves. Lucas being a commissioner in my analogy doesn't at all imply him being separate from the creative process since commissioners always have input on the projects themselves and often make requests and suggestions of their own. I think that actually perfectly describes the situation that tends to go on with Lucas-produced shows- he funds and produces the show, makes rules, edicts, suggestions, etc. on how it should be run/written, and then other people go out and write it. Both parties accurately described, and no one's shortchanged creative credit.
It's more about the fact that even though the writers are creators themselves, they are working within someone else's established ideas.
DeleteIf I was a writer on someone else's show, I would be as utterly respectful as possible to the original creator. Even if I thought I had a better idea, if the creator was still alive I would defer to them and scrap an idea they didn't like.
Likewise, if I created a fictitious universe and allowed others to write within it, I'd want the same courtesy. I'd certainly allow people to share ideas, but if I felt it was a bad direction I'd want the buck to stop with me.
P.S. Anon, I know you're on my side here, but you are using "Strawman" incorrectly.
Yeah, original creator typically gets the say (though this isn't always the case- see Bryan Fuller on Dead Like Me or Dan Harmon during Season 4 of Community), but the fact is most writers are working towards a vision of what best suits the show, not necessarily a deference to the original creator. And a lot of times even if the original creator objects they'll still stand by their ideas.
DeleteGreat example is Star Trek. Star Trek was very obviously originally Gene Roddenberry's idea, but his 'vision' of the show was excessively militaristic, macho, and fairly sexist, to the point where it's difficult to imagine the show still surviving today in the public consciousness under Roddenberry. But through Gene Coon (the writer who oversaw the back half of Season 1 and most of Season 2, commonly considered the original series' high point), those tendencies were muted and the real strength of the show brought out. Did he ignore deference to Roddenberry and go his own way for the show? Absolutely. Was he right to do so? Well, the fact the show still exists in the public consciousness after almost 50 years probably speaks for himself.
In this case, of course, Roddenberry's never actively shown to dislike Coon's direction, and so this sort of thing varys from show to show (a better example would be Doctor Who, where Terry Nation outright objected to many of David Whitaker's additions and takes on the Daleks, despite his episodes being commonly considered the high watermark of the characters). But my point is that writers *do* take shows in the direction they think is best, and often with a fight from the creators. If they think they idea is good, they're gonna fight it. Sometimes they get turned down, sometimes not, but they are gonna stand up for their ideas. To assume otherwise robs them of that backbone.
Maybe comicdom would be a better example. After all, no one's asking Stan Lee what he felt about Amazing Spiderman 2 or whatever.
Yes, but comicdom is constant re-adaptation, and kind of lends itself more to having different periods people like or dislike.
DeleteAnd sometimes creators are wrong, and their collaborators are right. No denying that. Lucas admits as much happened across all six films - he was against ideas that ended up working and vice versa. But as the mastermind, if you will, they should still be given a lot more benefit of a lot more doubt. There should be an even greater attempt at understanding san odd direction rather than dismissing it outright.
I would argue that benefit should be given to more creators than just the 'mastermind', but I see your point.
DeleteP.S. Anon, I know you're on my side here, but you are using "Strawman" incorrectly.
ReplyDeleteHartwell didn't attack my analogy, he created a simlar but weaker version of it then attack it. Classic strwman. Also unlike what Hartwell said, bricklayers and paints and others professionals usually give their imput on the best way of executing the work. IE, the best type of paint to use or the best type of morter, etc. Hartwell seems to like to twist other people's meanings around to suit his agenda.
I *did* attack your analogy- I felt it created an unsavory implication and thus objected to it. Not a strawman at all. Where did I try to 'create' a 'similar but weaker' version of the architect/bricklayers and painters analogy? I argued the implications, yeah, but nowhere did I try and argue against a different analogy.
DeleteAnd the thing is, the job of a bricklayer is to lay bricks. The job of a painter is to paint. They may have leeway within those very specific jobs, but in the scale of building a house they have little to no say in how it's built as a whole. They have very little autonomy outside of the confines of their very specific job. In the world of the film set, the architect would be best described as the director. In the world of TV, it's the showrunner (in a more democratically-run show, the writer's room). I still don't see what's wrong with my commissioner/architects analogy, as it still seems to overlay pretty well.
I think there's some issue on both sides at adequately wording thoughts.
DeleteYou stated the analogy implies an unsavory implication when it does not. You created this "unsavory implication" yourself.
Delete" And the thing is, the job of a bricklayer is to lay bricks. The job of a painter is to paint. "
And a writer's job is to write and a animator's job is to draw. Any profession can be broken down to very simple base terms. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking or disregarding this oversimplified version is a form of strawman. Which is what Hartwell has down with bricklayers and painters, breaking what was stateted about them down to much more simple versions than what was presented. While stating a different analogy that removes Lucas futher from the creative process.
Yes, take that comment out of context without understanding that my actual point was a sentence later. As I elaborated in my previous comment, they are very specific positions within the field that exist primarily to fill a very specific function with little more autonomy. Writing/animating are comparatively much more complex positions than that with much more input in the creative field (especially on an animated TV show, where they're basically top dog).
DeleteAnd once again, I do not see how my analogy removes Lucas from the creative process, as you haven't countered my position that describing him as a commissioner *doesn't* mean he has no input (in fact, I could go as far as saying that your misrepresentation of that point is a strawman in how you simplify the role of a commissioner and then argue that in terms of Lucas, but I find throwing fallacies at people to discredit arguments to be a bit tiresome).
No one here is ignoring the valuable contributions of other artists to the Saga. However, much of the hatedom is based on as critical misunderstanding of Lucas' vision, even amongst artists who would write liscenced material based on his world.
DeleteTherefore, we're more skeptical of gamechanging ideas from anyone other than Lucas, but give him more leeway.
Ah. Well, my point is more that that kind of thing should be judged more on the piece/idea itself, and not the person behind it. So if, say, Maul came back in what was obviously a cry for more toys, it would be that were it from nameless writer #739 or Lucas himself. Same if it were a major and brilliant storytelling decision. Without the creator themselves to say exactly why they made that decision, we only have the art itself to make that presumption.
DeleteNaturally, this applies as much to Lucas-bashers as it is to the people here.
Naturally, we'd be more apt to trust a man, business savvy as he is, who we know tends to make decisions based on Rule of Art or Rule of Cool ad opposed to Rule of Cash.
DeleteWelllllllllllllllllllll I'd know a fair amount of people who would disagree with that assessment (myself among them, but that's neither here nor there).
Delete"they are very specific positions within the field that exist primarily to fill a very specific function with little more autonomy."
DeleteAgain you are oversimplifing those examples, then attacking simplified versions to make your example look better. I explained this earlier to you and you are just ingnoring it and commiting it again. You keep repeating this cycle over and over, cicrle logic.
"as a commissioner *doesn't* mean he has no input (in fact, I could go as far as saying that your misrepresentation of that point is a strawman in how you simplify the role of a commissioner and then argue that in terms of Lucas"
Calling him a commissioner implies Lucas has little if any creative involement, that he is just a basic idea man that throws a few base ideas and lets the writers complete everything for him, then slaps his mame on the finished product. It just really implies very limited involvement on his part. In reality he was very involved with the show and writing. Also you accusing me of making a strawman is a tu quoque argument.
"but I find throwing fallacies at people to discredit arguments to be a bit tiresome).'
I guess so when you commit many yourself. You seem to display alot of rhetoric in your postings here. Such as turning my analogy into a red herring.
"No one here is ignoring the valuable contributions of other artists to the Saga."
That is true, no one here is downplaying the contributions made by other artists. However it is still Lucas's art, he is the qualified authority of his own art. Writers that are allowed to write using some of Lucas's art are not as qualified as Lucas himself. They do not have the credibility that Lucas would have regarding his art. Star Wars was an unusually case with this large franchise being the vision of one artist. However most haters commet the fallacy of accident. Misapplying a general rule (most nerdy fanchises are visions by committeess of different artists and executives) onto a specific case (Star Wars once being a vision of one artist).
*sigh*
DeleteLook, you haven't explained how bricklayers/painters/etc have any *real* influence over the work as a whole beyond saying things like "they choose color of paint, type of mortar", which are comparatively minor things when it comes to, you know, building a house. And from my point of view they *don't* have much autonomy outside of those very minor positions- this is not a simplified view of things, this is how I interpret your analogy, and unless you can adequately tell me how that's not true, then my argument is not a strawman.
And furthermore, as I've already explained, your view of a commissioner is not accurate, given that commissioners often involve themselves with the building from the get-go, working with the architect on designs, and passing down edicts, ideas, responsibilities, etc. Sure, some commissioners act the way you describe, but I mean, so do some producers. The fact that the analogy works both ways I think is a testament to its accuracy.
Also, we tend to over-exaggerate the extent to which the Star Wars universe was entirely Lucas's "vision". I mean, the guy wanted to write a Flash Gordon film, couldn't get the rights, and thus wrote his own movie. It became immensely, immensely popular and he of course added to that mythology, but after a point the 'universe', so to speak, was being contributed to by hundreds of writers beyond just Lucas, such that calling the entire universe 'his vision' is simply inaccurate. Like I said, give the man credit where credit is due- he oversaw a good chunk of three movies that became massively, massively successful and kickstarted a mythology that is still popular today. But over the course of the 20 years between when he was working on it, it became something much more than just "his vision". Which is why I object to this kind of "Great Man" history of art.
Also, reason I dislike your throwing fallacies left and right is that you do it often without actually addressing the issue in question. Which is, of course, a fallacy itself (also, tu quoque isn't actually applicable in that case since I wasn't using the fallacy to avoid addressing the argument, merely to point out that it existed. Which it does, and I notice you haven't denied that).
"Ah. Well, my point is more that that kind of thing should be judged more on the piece/idea itself, and not the person behind it. So if, say, Maul came back in what was obviously a cry for more toys, it would be that were it from nameless writer #739 or Lucas himself. Same if it were a major and brilliant storytelling decision. Without the creator themselves to say exactly why they made that decision, we only have the art itself to make that presumption.
DeleteNaturally, this applies as much to Lucas-bashers as it is to the people here."
The perceived quality of the art is also neither here nor there regarding who has the authority over that art. After all, art is subjective. Too many people hold Lucas to this very high double standard. They make him a god and when he is perceived as failing to be a god, he is accused of ruining childhoods. Just because he is the creator of his art, and has/had final say over his art, doen't mean he has any obligations to always appease the fans of his art. He only has to appease himself with his art. As the meme goes, George Lucas owes you nothing.
"art is subjective"
DeleteIt really isn't. The *worth* of art is entirely subjective, but things like techniques and craft play a very basic role in determining a given works' inherent quality.
Also, I never said Lucas owed me anything (well...he owes me something, but it's an entirely different topic to the one at hand), so I don't actually know who you're arguing at at the moment.
Sigh,
DeleteI did explain it to you but you are choosing to ignore it and poo pooing what I said to suit your agenda. You commeted many hasty generalizations against my analogy. I explained perfectly well how you were wrong, yet you just ignore or downplay what I said by saying phrases such as "real meaning". Using incorrect morter can lead to strucureal failure. Incorrect paint can lead to premature fading or improper protection againt weathering. Not minor problems, which is a strawman you made right there.
"Also, reason I dislike your throwing fallacies left and right is that you do it often without actually addressing the issue in question. Which is, of course, a fallacy itself (also, tu quoque isn't actually applicable in that case since I wasn't using the fallacy to avoid addressing the argument, merely to point out that it existed. Which it does, and I notice you haven't denied that)."
Well I dislike you using so much rhetoric in your posts and I pointed them out. Which is why I throw out fallicies right and left because you have used them as such and I pointed this out. I didn't bother to explain because they are self evident and I just don't feel like going over every last word of yours. You pointed out yourself some comissioners do not get that involed. Even if I did made a strawman (which I didn't) it is still a tu quoque since you did make a strawman then accusing me of doing the same doesn't disprove me.
"You pointed out yourself some comissioners do not get that involed."
DeleteWhich *doesn't* discredit my point. And yeah, it's still a strawman because your argument was that my analogy was incorrect because 'commissioners don't get involved'. And if you're saying your argument was that my analogy was weak because *some* commissioners don't get involved, than that's a seriously weak argument.
Also, look, I have *no* clue where you've stated anything in particular explaining how bricklayers and painters have any real influence on the construction of an architect's plans. I know I have addressed your points on this subject and have found no real explanation on this point, so if I have by some chance missed it, perhaps it would be in the best interests of this discussion to repeat it for me so that I may clearly see your argument and understand where you're coming from? Because I can't be expected to add anything to discussion if your reply is just gonna be "I said so already".
Also Hartwell, you keep ignoring that Bricklayers are craftsman, the materials used, the quality of the mortar and workmanship, and the pattern in which the units are assembled can significantly affect the durability of the overall masonry construction. I really dislike how you are using double standards for different skilled professions (bricklaying vs writing). Poor bricklaying workmenship can lead to failures, just as poor writing can lead to bad storytelling. Through writing is a bit more subjective.
DeleteIn any case, a good leader is open to imput and advise which Lucas clearly is.
I don't "keep ignoring" it- you brought it up once before and I did counter it, with the point:
Delete"They may have leeway within those very specific jobs, but in the scale of building a house they have little to no say in how it's built as a whole. They have very little autonomy outside of the confines of their very specific job."
A bricklayer in all likelihood is not going to go up to the architect and start weighing in on the design of the building as a whole. I mean, he *might*, but it's not why he's hired. Nor is the painter going to have a major say on how the building looks as a whole- heck, they might not even get to pick the color. It's a very specific job hired for a very specific purpose, and they won't be having 1-on-1's with the architect the same way a writer would have with the head writer, or the head writer with the producer.
The best analogy for bricklayers and painters would probably be production jobs- scripties, grips, PA's, etc. The production would without a doubt fall apart without them, but they don't have a say at all on how the show itself is going down.
Bricklayers are craftsmen, mansonary work is a skill and a art. If you don't know what you are doing can lead to very bad results. There will always arise conflicts between Design considerations and Build considerations. Which is why a good architect will consult with the craftmen to ensure a good job and a safe building. If a bricklayer sees something wrong with the design of the blueprints he will rasie his concerns. It is not like handing someone instructions for a lego kit and that all the parts will always go together smoothly.
DeleteAn architect can specifly what color to use, but will defer to a painter to know the best type or methods to use. You would not want to use latex paint on a metal beam (because it will quickly become rusty). You would want oil based paint for metal. If the desired color only comes in latex based paint, than the paniter will advise using the correct paint in a slighty different color. Painter's offten are experts with colors and usually offer their suggestions for color schemes.
An architect deals with the form and function of the building. He doesn't have the engineering know-how to assess the safety of the building design. It is not his job to know every best method for all aspects of construction. That he defers to the different craftsmen who have knowledge of these aspects and consults with them. To hire and work with the right professionals that he knows can implement his vision.
Much like like Lucas hiring and working with what he thinks are the best professionals to implement his vision.
A architect deals with the designing of a building. He forms the image in his head of how the building should be and has professionals execute the plans as close as possible.
DeleteWhile commissioners sometimes do get involved, they usually have a much less clear, often very vague idea of what their building should be like, hence why they hire a architect to flush out a complete design for them.
For the most part, Lucas created the idea of Star Wars main storyline of one form or another in his own head. Then hired pofessionals to execute his story into films and later TV shows. He didn't hire other people to completly flush out the design for him like a commissioner would. Through like an architect he did hire other writers to assist him in writing scripts at times, but not to flush everything out for him.
Again, though, I am not saying that bricklayers or painters somehow *aren't* craftsmen- just as I wouldn't say that about grips or scripties or something like that. Just that I think you're greatly exaggerating the level to which they would have any major say in the design of the building *as a whole*. Not just their specific part of it, the design *as a whole*. It's certainly not the extent to which a writer would have their say.
Delete"He didn't hire other people to completly flush out the design for him like a commissioner would."
And yet that's what happened with McQuarrie, Dyxstra, Burtt, and Williams. I mean, I'm not saying Lucas just gave edicts from afar and didn't actually do anything, not at all- his direction on the first film is tight and snappy, and though I do feel some major decisions were made by other underappreciated people (his wife in particular, who dramatically changed how the film was edited), he ultimately deserves credit for making the film the success it was. BUT that doesn't mean he deserves the sheer amount of credit he gets, nor that other people's credit is diminished down to "finishing his ideas". He gets credit for his contributions, they get credit for theirs. Simple as that.
And you're still oversimplifying the commissioners analogy. Incidentally.
Architects often give alot of leeway to bricklayers and other craftsmen to perform the best results.
DeleteBut you are exaggerating the level of input McQuarrie and Williams had in the films. McQuarrie only illustrated Lucas's vision, he didn't have input on the plot. Williams is the same, composing the score to fit the plot, not the other way around. He doesn't get to have a say on how the story should go.
There is a difference between hiring people to completly flush out a design (vision) for them and hiring people to perform work in specalized areas to implement his vision.
An architect will defer to a structural engineer to ensure the design is feasible and safe, or to a plumber for the best way to route pipes, etc. He hires professionals to perform specalized tasks he can not perform himself, even sometimes to altering the design. This is what Lucas did, he hired professionals to perform specialized tasks such as building models, designing sets, and composing the score. But this doesn't make it any less of George's vision. They are working to implement his vision, not their own, or at least that is how it is supposed to go.
However an architect still knows what he wants in a building while a comissioner only knows what he needs, and hires a architect to invent a vision for him. While a architect invents that vision himself, just like Lucas.
You realize, of course, that my commissioner analogy was specific to his status on the Clone Wars show? Which, while he has producer credit and often has actual input into the writing and general direction, is also mostly spearheaded by other writers/animators/directors/etc.? Though tbf, I don't think your analogy holds for something like ESB, either.
DeleteAnd my point in bringing up McQuarrie, etc. was not to say that they had any real input in the story/film as a whole. More that the parts of the films derived from their departments were *entirely* theirs, and to call them "finishers" of Lucas's ideas is simply inaccurate. Williams had almost no input from Lucas on the score and Lucas has said before how surprised he was with the work produced. Dykstra spearheaded a revolution in modern special effects technology, and the entire ILM department were basically inventing new technology every day to do the things they did. Burtt invented a new soundscape almost entirely from scratch.
These are the contributions of those people that have to be respected for what they are, and not belittled because a larger, more entitled individual happened to be there. Again, give Lucas credit where credit is due- who is owed the credit for making Star Wars a success? Lucas, unquestionably. But that's not the same as him being owed credit for every individual department because he happened to be the guy that hired them (well, mostly, anyways).
Wow, nobody ever belittled the roles of the other artists, only that Lucas knows what he wants from his universe better than anyone else, so we trust him more.
DeleteYou keep saying Lucas deserves more credit than he gets, which we all agree. But then by championing everyone else, you do it in a way that sounds like you yourself are reluctant to give credit.
I don't know about you, but when I make an original movie with original characters, I'd want final say and credit no matter how many immensely talented people helped me to put it together. They'd get their credit, but it's still my imagination.
I'm reluctant to give credit *in particular areas*, to be clear. And it's not because I'm distrustful of Lucas, it's that I'm distrustful of the approach a lot of art and particularly shared universes get where they have One Appointed Creator Forever and Always Who Created The Sun The Moon and The Earth and Thus Gets All Credit. It's a disease that infects Wars via Lucas, Trek via Roddenberry, the Daleks via Terry Nation, etc. And I fight against that viewpoint because it erases the fact of art (well, specifically film/television/etc.) as a primarily collaborative medium, where a universe comes out of the minds of many people.
DeleteVery very fortunately, Lucas is not the person Roddenberry was, who'll take credit for things that simply aren't his and not acknowledge the people who got him where is is today. No, Lucas is all things considered a pretty great guy, and though I think he has a bit of a control freak side to him, he's still not going to override other people and seriously act like The One True Creator. But unfortunately, he doesn't have to. The Fans do that for him, and that's why I fight against that view. It's a view so inaccurate that even Lucas doesn't seem to purport it. You might say this attitude doesn't exist- that the artists aren't being belittled, that their contributions aren't overlooked for Lucas. But that's not the attitude I see, where the primary discussions on the qualities of each film ultimately come down to Lucas's involvement, or where other artists are simply described as "finishers" to his ideas, cogs in the machine of his "vision". It's a view that to me almost treats other artists as incidental to the success of the film- that they wouldn't have amounted to anything without Lucas there to pull them together. And just speaking personally, I abhor a viewpoint that treats artists like that.
I know I come off veering too much to one side, and I apologize. This is one of several issues that is a particular sore spot, and that means I can get a little strong at times. Again, I do *honestly* feel Lucas does get shortchanged by a specific part of fandom, and I grow weary (and disheartened) of the hatred and bile spewed his way. I will defend what I feel should be defended as much as I can- whether or not that falls in Lucas's favor or not depends on the situation. And this particular one is...complex. To say the least.
You are quite correct Nilbog. It seems Hartwell contradicts himself at times. Yes professionals deserve credit for doing a good job which I don't deny, and they do get it. But you have to remember they are working to bring another man's vision to life, not their own, which is not a discredit in the least. I too grw weary of the hate sent to a guy who just wants to create art.
DeleteIt's the singularity that I object to. This idea that if you're working for someone else, your intrinsically only bringing *their* vision to life, and not working to bring something of their own to it as well. Simply put, that's not how collaboration works.
DeleteAnd I should hope I contradict myself at points, since it avers the fact I am human and thus prone to error and/or shifts in opinions. I don't believe I've actually ever contradicted my points through this discussion, though I'd be happy to clear up any inconsistencies.
You certainly appear to contradict yourself often, but as I too sometimes have trouble voicing my own thoughts correctly, I won't condemn you for being confusing.
DeleteIt is all too easy to get details confused in the heat of battle which can lead to contradictions popping up.
Delete. "I'm reluctant to give credit *in particular areas*, to be clear. And it's not because I'm distrustful of Lucas, it's that I'm distrustful of the approach a lot of art and particularly shared universes get where they have One Appointed Creator Forever and Always Who Created The Sun The Moon and The Earth and Thus Gets All Credit. It's a disease that infects Wars via Lucas, Trek via Roddenberry, the Daleks via Terry Nation, etc. And I fight against that viewpoint because it erases the fact of art (well, specifically film/television/etc.) as a primarily collaborative medium, where a universe comes out of the minds of many people."
DeleteI disagree that way of thinking is a diease that infects. Lucas created Star Wars so he knows best what Star Wars is. Terry Nation is a little different since he created the Dalaks for someone else's universe, not his own. It is shamful that other writers didn't respect his wishes, no matter how popular the new version is, an appeal to popularity.
"Very very fortunately, Lucas is not the person Roddenberry was, who'll take credit for things that simply aren't his and not acknowledge the people who got him where is is today. No, Lucas is all things considered a pretty great guy, and though I think he has a bit of a control freak side to him, he's still not going to override other people and seriously act like The One True Creator. But unfortunately, he doesn't have to. The Fans do that for him, and that's why I fight against that view. It's a view so inaccurate that even Lucas doesn't seem to purport it"
Lucas has made statements that contradicts what you have said. He has stated that with Star Wars, his word is the gospel, and everything else is gossip. He has also stated at times he considers his films to be a different universe than the EU. He also views the films as his, and that bing the creator can alter them as he sees fit. Art is not a democracyit is a dictatorship.
In film and TV, control is everything. If you don't have control, your art can be taken away, hijacked from you. Something Lucas, Walt Disney, and Terry Nation know all too well. In this case, being a control freak is wise, so you don't have your creation taken from you. Just look at the EU where they sometimes try to alter Star Wars to their vision instead of trying to keep it true to Lucas's vision. Or the angry fans who want the OOT versions of the films released, they don't care about respecting an artist's vision. They just want Star Wars to be the way they want it, and not apprecate it for what it is. Which is part of the reason I hate the ideas of "correct art".
Delete"I see, where the primary discussions on the qualities of each film ultimately come down to Lucas's involvement, or where other artists are simply described as "finishers" to his ideas, cogs in the machine of his "vision". It's a view that to me almost treats other artists as incidental to the success of the film- that they wouldn't have amounted to anything without Lucas there to pull them together. And just speaking personally, I abhor a viewpoint that treats artists like that."
Usually I see this line of thinking used to berate Lucas, that the less involved he is, the "better" the film. This is often used as the excuse why TESB is considered the best film. Though I can remember ANH was considered the best until about 8 years ago, and still often polls better. That the hateboys just use this to rationalize their hate and to explain how a man who made films they did like could also make films they don't. That it isn't really just their opinions (which it is). As proof he is a hack who got lucky, which is asinine.
We really would not know how sucessful these artists would have been without Lucas's project. Some would probably have just joined up with other's projects or started their own. But unless we have a time machine to go alter the past to see the results, we will never know for sure. However what we do know is that without Lucas, we would not be talking about Star Wars today. That these other artists would not have had Star Wars for their springboard. They may have found other springboards to sucess, or maybe not, without Star Wars but who knows.
Personally I can not even see how the artists have been treated as incidental and just view that statement as bizarre. Yes they helped to bring to life the films, and even made it possible, but that doesn't give them artistic claim over Star Wars. They sold their talent and skill to help create the films. They helped make Star Wars great, but they are still finishers to Lucas's vision. However Lucas knows how to pick the talented people.
"Terry Nation is a little different since he created the Dalaks for someone else's universe, not his own. It is shamful that other writers didn't respect his wishes"
DeleteAh, but he didn't. He created extremely generic space Nazi monsters that were then rewritten by David Whitaker (the script editor of the time) and given absolute phenomenal designs by Raymond Cusick, which is what made them so popular. And this isn't a "oh, well, they were just finishers of his ideas and he was still the creator"- Everything that made the Daleks popular and influential can be directly traced back to other writers and creators.
But of course, being credited as "the creator of the Daleks", Nation would go on to make as much money off of them as inhumanly possible, actively discredit the work of other contributors, and try and set down his own 'official' history, often throwing out popular stories that happened not to be written by him.
He's the Bob Kane of Doctor Who, basically. And to say he created the Daleks, while legally true, is also massively inaccurate from any other perspective.
I'll post on the Lucas-specific stuff a bit later.
Allright, so the thing to understand is that I'm not trying to seriously argue that people have been shafted credit for their work on the films. Of course not. Even in the egregious examples I've listed, people like Coon and Cusick have always gotten legal credit for their positions. That's not the issue. The issue is when a single creator gets an overwhelming amount of focus that actively elides their contributions- not legally, but culturally. No one aside from film and SW enthusiasts know the names of Ralph McQuarrie, Ben Burtt, or John Dykstra. Many of them don't even know Gary Katz, Lawrence Kasdan, or Irvin Kershner. But Lucas is a household name, and I guarantee you you ask your general everyman who did x on Star Wars the answer is probably gonna be Lucas.
DeleteNow, is it fair that Lucas gets absolved of credit in some cases, where artists other than him get more than they perhaps deserve? Of course it's not. It's the same issue going the other way, but both are worth fighting against (also, incidentally, that's an argument to popularity re: the polls and how Star Wars and ESB compare. Star Wars will always be the more popular purely because it was the first, but ESB has long been the critical darling- I can direct you to the Ebert/Siskel from I think '93 (possibly ;97), and the consensus is that it's the strongest. Neither piece of evidence, of course, has any impact on the argument "which one is better", just evidence of how the populace and the critics treat each film).
"being a control freak is wise, so you don't have your creation taken from you."
It's also called being a bad collaborator. Lot of people don't like working with too-controlling directors (and I don't really know where you get this idea that creators lose their content left right and center- it happens, unfortunately more often than it should and it's terrible, but it's not nearly as pervasive a tendency as you seem to think).
"Just look at the EU where they sometimes try to alter Star Wars to their vision instead of trying to keep it true to Lucas's vision."
...as they should. Lucas isn't the one writing those stories, but he's also knowingly distanced himself from them and though he's free to reject them as he wishes, the writers also shouldn't be hamstrung by arbitrary notions of what Lucas would want.
Personally I always considered TESB to be the weakest of the 3 OT films, and probably the most overhyped of them. Many critics still rated ANH the highest in 1997 when the SE was released. I even believe TPM is a better film, but it is all opinion.
DeleteI never said anything about creators losing their creations happens all the time. Not sure where you get that from? However, it really sucks when it does happen and not something one wants to repeat. I can understand Lucas being a "control freak" to maintain control. Oh, he’s a control freak, but he’s no more or less a control freak than any other Hollywood filmmaker. Control is the name of the game, and for Lucas he learned the lesson of maintaining control after American Graffiti. The hateboy control freak accusation is really just an attempt to rationalize how Lucas could make 3 films they really like (ANH, TESB and Raiders) and four films they really hate (TPM, AOTC, ROTS and Kingdom). If the same filmmaker is responsible for all those films, it can’t be that their own unrealistic expectations and mistaken assumptions are responsible for why they don’t like some of them (coincidentally, the later ones). It must be because the filmmaker had transformed into a dictatorial madman who refused to listen to anyone. In the behind the scenes footage from the making of the prequels, Lucas is often seen seeking opinions and advice.
Hardly a control freak. There are also those, like John Knoll at ILM, who are seen telling Lucas, “I don’t know how I can make this work.” What is clear is that people seemed very trusting and, yes, deferential, to Lucas’ point of view. And for good reason: Lucas had earned that trust over a long and successful career. Did people challenge his ideas? Yes, but not with hostility. They also clearly respect the fact that Lucas is the boss and has the final say — which is as it should be. He’s earned it.
Lucas managed to get most of what he wanted and the film’s success earned him even more critical and financial capital. He used that capital to buy himself more freedom.
I would also never deny the contributions of collaborators like Kurtz, Kershner and M. Lucas. But to say that they, or any other crew member, were somehow more responsible for Lucas’ success than himself is false.There are incalculable variables that go into the decision-making process over the span of 40-year career. Fans should be more respectful of that reality.
"It must be because the filmmaker had transformed into a dictatorial madman who refused to listen to anyone."
DeleteSince when did I say that? Like I said, I've long felt the problem with Lucas is the absolute hellish shoots he had to endure through Star Wars and ESB, and thus when he returned to directing after a 20-year hiatus he took care to ensure the process would be as safe and easily controlled as possible. That doesn't mean he was dictatorial or a madman, just that he took care to make sure everything went his way and often fell into some blind spots with that.
And I mean, I can back this up with evidence. I watched an editing doc a while back where Lucas is going on about how great a lot of modern editing software is because you can "create the whole movie in the editing room". He goes on to advocate the advantages of being able to do most all of the film purely through the editing, and it's clearly how he would prefer to make a film- in a very controlled environment where he can have absolute say in how things are run and not be waylaid by production problems like he was before.
It's in the way he edits, the way the scenes themselves are approached- the absolute bog-standard way the scenes are shot and blocked, the fact that a good majority of scenes are shot in total greenscreen. It allows Lucas the ability to have the final say on everything and not be weighed down by real-life concerns.
And I should clarify, I'm not being hateful or even condescending here. I can *totally* understand how a guy can prefer an experience like that after the tribulations he had to suffer through with Star Wars. I can more than tell you- if I had to go through that shoot and came out of it with diabetes and a divorce, I can guarantee that I wouldn't return to directing until the technology was good enough that I can make the movie I want without having to go through that again. It makes total sense, and I don't begrudge Lucas a bit for going at it that way. I just don't think it led to making very good movies, is all.
It really isn't. The *worth* of art is entirely subjective, but things like techniques and craft play a very basic role in determining a given works' inherent quality.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I never said Lucas owed me anything (well...he owes me something, but it's an entirely different topic to the one at hand), so I don't actually know who you're arguing at at the moment.
It is a meme to reminds us all that Lucas doesn't owe us to make his art in a way to make us happy (which is true of all artists). He only has to make art to suit himself which is what most artists do. That wasn't meant torwards you, but to remind everyone.
In most caes techniques and craft are also subjective. One critic may dislike one technique while another may like it.
Again, they're not. Critics liking/disliking techniques isn't the same as the technique's usage being theoretically sound or reasonable. I mean, the thing that blurs the line here is that artistic techniques are typically wrapped up in choices made on behalf of the artist, and sussing out those techniques often involves analyzing the intent of the artist through the piece he's made. Which is difficult, and why there is often critical disagreement on a lot of different works (and why the tide shifts on these things). But it doesn't take a lot of knowledge to point out that Citizen Kane is a better shot film than some 5-year-old's backyard movie (even though the respective "worth" of each film greatly depends on the viewer themselves).
Delete“Let the writer take up surgery or bricklaying if he is interested in technique. There is no mechanical way to get the writing done, no shortcut. The young writer would be a fool to follow a theory. Teach yourself by your own mistakes; people learn only by error. The good artist believes that nobody is good enough to give him advice. He has supreme vanity. No matter how much he admires the old writer, he wants to beat him.” "William Faulkner".
DeleteTechnique is nothing more than inventing a theory, a idealogy of what art should be. Not for appreciating art for what it is. You may not follow this, but it seems this is what Lucas and many other artists believe and follow. To suit themselves and not fans, critics, or theory and not to let such things control their artistry.
This last bit is the gospel truth. It's why I can't stand film schools. While I won't say there's no right and wrong, the line is not nearly defined as the academics would say it is. The line is actually blurry and zigzaggy. There are no rules, only guidelines.
DeleteWell, look at it this way- we're all taught in grade school general rules of writing, right? Things like grammar, spelling, and then when you go on it's more complex stuff like syntax, meter, alliteration, all sorts of things. And then when you go and attempt stuff like novels, you're doing much, much more complex things, but that's still the backbone. It's the same thing with film- cinematography is nothing more than the visual grammar of a film, with shot angle, lenses, composition, etc. being like its punctuation.
DeleteI think what Faulkner would object to is more this singular approach that can infect a lot of especially modern approaches to academia, where writing and especially drama is treated almost like a paint-by-numbers formula. How many screenwriting books have you seen that basically say "anyone can become a writer with THIS MAGIC FORMULA" as if that's all there is to writing decent drama. In which case, yeah, that's bull, and the best way of understanding drama is really just to inundate yourself with it and keep practicing as much as you can. Foraging to be your own voice instead of someone else's.
But that doesn't mean that the craft doesn't exist. Again, you can tell Faulkner apart from a 5-year-old's essay on "What I Did Over the Summer" without too much difficulty, and what it ultimately boils down to is the craft- the techniques employed- the structures used, etc. We have stuff like 5-act structure, Aristotelian drama, rules of tension, etc. for a reason, and it's not because academics like them.
I do think guidelines is a slightly better way of putting things like this (note I never actually said "rules", though), though there are some principles I would find hard to refute (ex, I couldn't see a film where a guy sits at his computer all day and isn't challenged or conflicted working very well at all). When you're as good as Faulkner (or in the film case, someone like Kubrick), you can break rules very easily, but the trick is to understand the effect it'll have on the audience and how it best serves the given story you're expressing. Again, I don't think it's the idea of craft that's being objected to- merely the singular way in which it's generally expressed.
Then what about Of Mice and Men which uses poor grammer as it's style. Just because it breaks some rules doesn't make it a bad story.
DeleteWriting is a communication tool, while film making is usually an expression of art. Any language needs some sort of standardization everyone knows to make it an effective communication tool such as writing. Art doesn't require standardization since it is not a tool.
“Let the writer take up surgery or bricklaying if he is interested in technique."
DeleteI think Hartwell is "missing the point" of Faulkner. That a artist doesn't need to follow technique, and that if he does should then choose another profession. That technique is a constraint on art.
Dude, the Of Mice and Men example is my point. "When you're as good as Faulkner (or in the film case, someone like Kubrick), you can break rules very easily, but the trick is to understand the effect it'll have on the audience and how it best serves the given story you're expressing." Never said breaking rules makes something a bad story.
DeleteAnd yeah, Art isn't a tool, but it utilizes tools to be a form of expression. And those tools have tricks and guidelines- you shoot a romance in lo-key lighting and it's gonna look like your male lead is a serial killer. Now maybe that's the point- it's dependent on choices and intents. But if your intent is to shoot an everyday normal romantic comedy, it looking like a horror film is going to dramatically weaken your art. Maybe there's not a "right" and "wrong" so to speak, but there's at the very least poor and strong choices.
And you can make poor choices and still have good art. You can also make great choices with terrible results.
DeleteIn all Star Wars movies: The story is great, the cinematography is great (YES, Hartwell, it is), the dialogue is a loving homage to an archaic style that tends to sit wrong with modern audiences who don't allow themselves to be immersed, the performances do their best to take said dialogue seriously with varying results and yet still manage to craft believable characters, the effects are groundbreaking but the seams are obvious if you know where to look, the music is some of the best in history.
While many different people made huge contributions to this, George Lucas is the one who dreamed it up and got everyone together. His isn't necessarily the only valuable view, but it is the most important especially when it comes to story and style. He is the only person who KNOWS, even if it takes him a while to decide. The others can only guess. Some have made amazing guesses, leaving their own signature on as vital part of the Saga, but none can claim to KNOW except Lucas.
So let's shut up about bricklayers and syntax and all that crap and just enjoy some good cinema.
"And you can make poor choices and still have good art. You can also make great choices with terrible results."
DeleteThe first is true, but generally dependent on the severity of the decision- ex. bad cinematography is a much more damaging flaw than say, a single bad actor in a minor role (and I'm still not convinced re: Star War's cinematography, but we've had this discussion before and I doubt it's going to go anywhere). As to the latter, though...example? I can think of seemingly good decisions made for the wrong reasons, but I can't think of a legit good choice that directly led to a terrible result. Maybe good decisions made in bad films, but the good didn't lead to the bad.
Again, though, it's relative. Like I was saying before, the issue isn't thinking that there's a right/wrong, or poor/strong, or that there exists things like technique and craft- it's that there often exists a very singular conception of such things. Ex. "it's this way here, so it MUST be THIS way for ALL things". When that's of course not true. A film like My Dinner With Andre is not going to be shot the same way as a Star Wars film, and a good director (or critic, for that matter) understands that. If anything, this is an attack more to the very singular-minded internet review culture that criticizes a film because it doesn't conform to their established view of normalcy.
Exactly.
DeleteOh, we agree? Wow, uh...that's rare.
DeleteIt's the way you argue the point that makes you sound very often like those very reviewers. And when I try and debate these ideas, I don't seem to be able to word my responses as airtight as it seems in my own head.
Deletewhen a 20 year-old tells everybody about the nature of art, the universe, and everything, it's deep, deep business. the world will never be the same.
ReplyDeleteMy age (which I'm curious to your knowledge of) is irrelevant to the argument at hand. I assume you're not the Anon from above (though how can I tell, your names are all the same), but if you were you'd know full well that's ad hominem and a rather rude tactic to employ.
DeleteAnd for what its worth, I'm not attempting to change the world with my arguments. Nor am I attempting to be the one true judiciary on art. Just debating my point with fellow commentators. Nothing more than that.
It wasn't me from above"he "architect" guy, who posted about your age. I did not even had a clue of your age until the other Anon posted it, which you probably should not have confirmed for him.
DeleteI haven't said if his knowledge is correct or not, just that I'm curious to its existence.
DeleteMost of what you've said and your general demeanor does paint a picture of that age range. I remember myself at that age being not so different from you (I've mellowed considerably since then).
DeleteThat being said age and maturity are two different things, and while one is supposed to come with the other, that's not always the case.
While we disagree to the point where it drives me up the wall, and he often comes off as the last source of knowledge, the fact that Hartwell more than once admits and apologizes when he misspeaks - and even the fact that he tries his best to debate civilly - does show good maturity, and I give him all the credit in the world.
Argue against his ideas if you will. I'm often immebsely thankful for the help. But leave the man himself out of it. This goes in all directions.
*immensely.
DeleteAllright, my comment ended up being a lot longer than it was supposed to be (my apologies- I can pontificate like no other, it seems), so here's the stuff that's specific to the "OOT", something I'm sure will spawn a thread all its own (though, Nilbog, feel free to nip this discussion in the bud- I know we've been at this before and, it being something I'm very very passionate about, has the tendency of derailing this topic even further than it has. Just let me know ahead of time if you're planning on deleting the comment so I can save it elsewhere, since I may need it preserved for my own personal reasons).
ReplyDelete"Or the angry fans who want the OOT versions of the films released, they don't care about respecting an artist's vision. They just want Star Wars to be the way they want it, and not apprecate it for what it is."
The key thing to understand about the arguments here is that it's not a matter of preserving artistic vision (like it would be in a case like Blade Runner, Little Shop of Horrors, Thief and the Cobbler, etc.), but rather one of preserving our cultural history. The Star Wars that premiered in 1977 and promptly changed the face of cinema forever is manifestly not A New Hope, or the New Hopes of '97, 2006, 2013, etc. And no one is suggesting that the other versions should be erased (well, okay, some people actually are suggesting that, but let's ignore them because it's a stupid position), merely that the originals be preserved *as well*. And it's honestly not a
Also, the 'artist's vision' argument doesn't hold much water when you remember Lucas doesn't have artistic control over ESB or ROTJ. Yeah, you can make arguments in the case of Marquand, but Lucas still acted in the mode of producer for those films and thus doesn't get to hold creative control over the original directors. Again, I have no issue with him releasing his own cut of the films, but if you're concerned about respecting artistic vision, why are you not concerned with respecting the artistic vision of Kershner and Marquand and preserving their cuts as well as Lucas's?
It'd be like Spielberg releasing his cut of Poltergeist. Yeah, it's fine and dandy and it'd probably be great, but Hooper's cut needs to be preserved as well, at the very least in the name of film preservation- which is, again, the thing that underpins this entire conversation. It's not about 'not respecting an artist's vision' or 'wanting Star Wars to be the way they want it', it's about preserving an important artifact of our cultural history.
Whoops, looks like I forgot to finish a sentence there. That third paragraph should read "And it's honestly not an unreasonable request to make that one of the highest-grossing and most influential and game-changing films of all time should be preserved in its original form and available to the general public."
DeleteAgain- I don't give two flips about the special editions. I used to, but they're there and they're not going anywhere and since I'm not gonna watch them anyways I don't see why I should fuss about a load of decisions I happen not to agree with. So I don't like them, big deal. I'll spend my energies elsewhere. What *matters* is that I actually don't have the choice to watch the preserved originals, and that's a choice that should be available to the public at large. And it's not. *That's* the issue at hand.
For one, Lucas was very involved with ROTJ, directing many scenes himself including all the throne room scenes. Again it is his art and it should be presented the way he wants it. Fans, culture, what have you do not get a say. He doesn't owe anyone to release OOT versions.
DeleteSimply put, the whole “preservation” argument for wanting Lucas to release the original theatrical cuts of the 4-6 trilogy is BS. Those cuts of the films ARE preserved. They’re in the Library of Congress, they’re on video, they’re on the Internet, they’re never going to go away. Future generations will ALWAYS be able to see the theatrical version of the Han/Greedo shoot out. You want to see it? It will take one Google search and five seconds before it’s on your screen. Enjoy.
So enough with the “preservation” crapola. “Preservationists” need to just man-up and admit that what they really want is prevent Lucas from exercising his artistic rights. But that doesn’t sound nearly as noble, does it.
What the “preservation” argument is designed to mask is something else entirely: fan ownership of Star Wars. It’s a term that lends moral nobility and academic legitimacy to a more primal “gimme, gimme” want. It’s not about “preservation,” it’s about exhibition. It’s about forcing George Lucas — who is still alive, by the way — to edit and exhibit his films according to the demands of a small group of hyper-obsessed fans. They don’t like Greedo shooting 7 frames before Han, so they want a high-resolution, bookshelf copy for their basement archives that conforms to their preference. They don’t care about “preservation”, they just don’t want to see the changes Lucas made to his art. Lucas, however, has every right — legally AND morally — to exhibit his films as he sees fit. They’re HIS movies. HIS story. What he’s doing is no different from what artists for centuries — from cavemen to Shakespeare to Tolkien — have done: update and revise their works during their lifetime.
It’s his material and he’s been altering them for decades. The 1977 version of “Star Wars” has never been on home video. Ever. Yet somehow the republic has survived. Just how perfect do the home video versions need to be? The DVD copies from 2006 still look great on my plasma. In many ways they look BETTER than the scratched and faded prints I saw in theaters in 77, 80 and 83. This isn’t about preservation at all. It’s about “we like this version better.” Well, sorry, you only get to vote with your wallet.
When it comes to TESB and ROTJ, Lucas always the right to had final cut in contracts. They were his stories. Kersh and Marquand were artists for hire, and Lucas was the principle creative executive on the projects. They’re his films to alter. In the case of the Indy movies, Lucas defers to Spielberg out of respect and mutual agreement. That’s his decision to make.
So the bottom line is this: Lucas gets to decide what IS and IS NOT Star Wars, not the fans. Until he dies, the films are works in progress. While he’s alive, they’re not yet artifacts that must be preserved like they were created by the ancients. They’re not yet museum pieces. I know 30 years might seem like ancient history to some, but its not. These films have been constantly evolving since the day of their first release and they’ll continue to do so. Fans don’t get to decide the moment and the version in which they’re finally carved in stone. Lucas gets to decide that. He’s the artist. That’s how Lucas appears to see it and that’s how I see it.
DeleteI don’t agree with the preservation argument. Lucas can release these films in a manner he sees fit. Fans who like the older versions can hang on to their copies until they or the copies wear out. In a battle between what the fans want and what the artist want, I’ll side with the artist every time.
IIRC, evidence suggests the copies in the LoC aren't being properly preserved and are actually deteriorating.
DeleteBut it's not actually available to the public- oh, sure, they have the now-out-of-print DVDs from 2006 (that aren't actually restorations at all but non-anamorphic transfers of the Laserdisc qualities, and noticeably suffer in comparison to the newly-restored anamorphic SE versions), but if you want to watch it in the best available format? You have to default to the SEs. It is impossible for anyone to be able to watch the original versions in the currently accepted 'best format', which is honestly not that big a request. *That's* not preservation- that's going "you have it" and stopping it there. By that standard, the original ending to LSOH was "preserved" before the DVD restoration because we had the grainy black-and-white workprint. The original version of The Hobbit is "preserved" because the original book still exists, albeit in rare copies that cost upwards of a thousand dollars to obtain. Anything released on VHS that still shockingly hasn't been restored to DVD is still "preserved"
Preservation isn't just about making sure it exists. It's making sure it's available for the public at large in actually decent formats (and I'm sorry, but a crappy out-of-print laserdisc transfer from 2006 is by 2014 not a decent format), not for a silly concept like fan ownership, but *cultural* ownership. This is our culture, to be preserved and passed down, not hoarded by an elite few who dictate what version of that culture we must choose to enjoy.
"Kersh and Marquand were artists for hire"
DeleteYou're still using that term, and it's still inaccurate for Kershner (I already made exception for Marquand), who was by and large given free reign on the direction and told it was his film. Yeah, like I said, legally it's Lucas's decision to cut it, but I was never arguing that. I'm arguing- if it's the "artist's vision" that has to be respected, and the director is *the* artist on a film, why are we defaulting to Lucas here despite the actual creative side of the direction on ESB being down to Kershner? At the very least, shouldn't *this* be the film where both artist's final say on their cuts is adequately preserved in equivalent formats for audiences to choose from?
Well, that'll teach me to go to bed at a reasonable hour.
DeleteWe've been over this time and again, in threads much more suited. I have a few things to say, then I think we all need to drop it.
Hartwell, while I have no doubt that your intentions are noble, the mere fact that this level of outcry has not been levied at ANY of the other films/books you've mentioned (except MAYBE Blade Runner) tells me that most preservationists are like Anon said - only interested in preserving the version they like. Your heart is in the right place, andI respect that, but I still feel your position is wrong for all the reasons stated previously.
On the subject of Kersh, who is a great artist in his own right and contributed mightily to the Saga both as a director and mentor, I must reiterate that in the case of ESB he was hired to bring Lucas' vision to the screen. Sure, George gave him free reign, but he didn't take that as far as he could because he knew it was George's story in George's universe and he had the utmost respect for the original artist. That is what gives Lucas the moral and legal right to the final cut - of which the least amount of changes were made and was decidedly NOT a critical darling until at least a decade in retrospect.
And that's all I have to say about that.
" the mere fact that this level of outcry has not been levied at ANY of the other films/books you've mentioned (except MAYBE Blade Runner)"
DeleteYou haven't seen people up in arms over LSOH and Thief and the Cobbler? I mean, I don't know what to say except that this might be a case of just not following the same circles, since people I know who care about those are *hugely* passionate about the original cuts- esp. any film fanatics that are upset about films that haven't yet been released on DVD.
I think the only reason Star Wars might seem to get more attention is simply the fact that it's bigger and more popular, and thus attracts a wider base than a more obscure film like Thief and the Cobbler would. So there's more people concerned about Star Wars than other films, but I can guarantee you the passion is still the same, at least for the people who actually know what they're talking about and aren't Lucas bashers who latch on to an issue merely to get angry about something (of which, unfortunately, there typically are in these kinds of cases).
Thief is an entirely different story, since the studio cut together what was left when Williams ran out of money, so it's Williams fighting for his right as an artist to show the movie his way (seeing as he worked on it for the better part of a generation).
DeleteAs for Little Shop, while I've met people who prefer the original ending, the public never saw the filmed version outside of the test audiences. While Frank Oz preferred the darker ending, rather than stick with it he decided to go with the happy ending for general release (which, in my opinion, fits the tone better). If Frank wanted to, he could update and restore the original ending and push to release it edited into the final film. Instead, he doesn't care enough.
So neither of these examples fit what's going on with Lucas, who is updating his own stories and catching flak for it.
You do know they restored the workprint ending to LSOH and released it on the Blu-Ray, right? Happened last October, I think.
DeleteBut anyways, in my comment I did state they were differing examples, so I was specifically addressing your comment that no one seemed to really care about them as much with the exception of Blade Runner. The example which is more pressing (and the one that wasn't addressed) are films that haven't yet been released on Blu-Ray, or worse yet, DVD, which is a huge bugbear for a lot of film fanatics and I think adequately supports my argument that it's not just Lucas-bashers that support releasing the original versions for posterity.
(also, slight tangent- the reason that the revised ending fits the tone better is because they edited the film to better fit the revised ending. A lot of people are under the impression the only thing that changed about the film was the ending, when a lot of other scenes and cuts happened elsewhere. You can actually find a video on YouTube and vimeo that collects all the cuts from another (color) workprint copy)
Delete(I should also add, for what it's worth, that I'm actually not a big fan of the film version of LSOH either way, so I'm not arguing for the inherent superiority of a particular version. My position on the film is, naturally, that both cuts should be preserved- one in the name of respecting the artist's vision, and one in the name of preserving artistic history. Not-coincidentally, this is also my same position on Star Wars)
DeleteMaul was an interesting looking character. And made quite a badass as a nemesis for both Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan. Actually, I found him more useful as a character than Boba Fett in the OT. But . . . once Obi-Wan bumped him off, I didn't miss him. As far as I was concerned, he had served his purpose in the Saga. Resurrecting him for "THE CLONE WARS" didn't make sense to me. And I wish that Lucas had not resurrect him in the first place.
ReplyDelete