George Lucas loses his mind
POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Monday, October 24, 2011 00:35
VIEWED: 28259
PAGE 8 of 12
Quote:
Originally posted by ReaverInA1985Riviera:
I'm still pissed Spielberg replaced the guns with walkie-talkies in E.T., it took away alot of the feeling of peril when Eliot escapes on his bike.
---------------------------------------------
If it helps any, at an anniversary screening of Raiders last week, Spielberg said he regretted making that change, and would be putting out the unaltered version of ET on Blu Ray.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is a list of 50 things wrong with the Indy IV script: http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/05/50-flaws-of-indy-iv.html
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I actually liked Crystal Skull just fine. I mean, what, God's wrath exploding from the Arc Of The Covenant in a life-sucking sandstorm was fine, aliens aren't?
My problems with that movie had zero to do with aliens, and everything to do with a terrible script.
Sadly, there was a beautiful script that Lucas rejected because he wanted to cram into the movie Shia LaBeouf, Indy's worthless Mutt. http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/06/50-strengths-of-darabonts
-draft.html
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I like Crystal Skull for what it is, but I finally have to agree with you that the script was severely lacking.
Originally posted by Storymark:
My problems with that movie had zero to do with aliens, and everything to do with a terrible script.
It was 'The Closer.'
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by two:
Sadly, there was a beautiful script that Lucas rejected because he wanted to cram into the movie Shia LaBeouf, Indy's worthless Mutt. http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/06/50-strengths-of-darabonts
-draft.html
Really, Darabont's draft was only slightly better than what they filmed, and still contains most of the bad stuff from Crystal Skull (including the notorious "Nuke the ridge" scene, and instead of silly CGI ants, it would have had a big silly CGI snake). It was really a wash, better in some areas, worse in others.
And get your facts straight - adding Shia was all Spielberg. He's made that clear himself several times. Not that he was the problem with the movie, either, but again - get the story right.
Here is a breakdown, from a screenwriter POV, on the problems with both scripts:
Crystal Skull:
http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2011/03/10-screenwriting-no-nos-you-c
an-learn.html
City of the Gods:
http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2011/03/indiana-jones-and-city-of-god
s-darabont.html
And for contrast - why Raiders rocks so hard:
http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2011/03/10-screenwriting-tips-you-can
-learn.html
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Best way to test the soundness of Lucas's judgment is to read what Lucas rejected: www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Purported_Indiana_Jones_4_original_screenplay_d
Originally posted by Storymark:
Really, Darabont's draft was only slightly better than what they filmed...
raft "You can't stop the signal."
Quote:Does Spielberg have a gentleman's wager with George Lucas that Shia LaBeouf can be made a movie star if you put him into enough movies?
Originally posted by Storymark:
And get your facts straight - adding Shia was all Spielberg.
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, the first analysis linked is already way off. Hero characters are by nature supposed to be reactive. There's even a trope about it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainsActHeroesReact
In Raiders, Indy was reactive, avoiding traps, and very nearly being left by his treacherous side kick.
Also, I had no problem following the plot in Crystal Skull, which is supposedly muddled. Honestly, I think the way it got from point A to point B was fine, consistent with other Indiana Jones movies, and I wasn't bothered by Harrison Ford being older, he's still good enough to carry it.
Whenever I talk to people, it always seems like the main objection was either the nuke the fridge sequence or the aliens. But there's actually a lot of fun action sequences in the middle.
If we want to talk about fourth films from a trilogy I think are bad, I more think of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and of course A Phantom Menace. Crystal Skull was still an entertaining movie, while I wasn't entertained by the other two examples.
And out of the Indiana Jones franchise, you want to complain about Crystal Skull when Temple of Doom exists? I dunno, I just think people are being too picky.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
I dunno, I just think people are being too picky.
I agree with you Byte. With this film [Crystal Skull] and most of what Lucas does.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by two:Quote:Best way to test the soundness of Lucas's judgment is to read what Lucas rejected: www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Purported_Indiana_Jones_4_original_screenplay_d
Originally posted by Storymark:
Really, Darabont's draft was only slightly better than what they filmed...
raft "You can't stop the signal."
Uh... I did.
Did you not read my post....?
Im comparing the filmed draft the the Darabont draft - the scripts under discussion. There were literally dozens of scripts written for Indy 4. But YOU were the one championing Darabont's.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, the first analysis linked is already way off. Hero characters are by nature supposed to be reactive. There's even a trope about it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainsActHeroesReact
That might be a "TV trope" - but it is considered a big no-no in screenwriting. Technical similarities aside, they are two different mediums, with rather different rules.
Yes, Heroes react. But they can't JUST be reactive. They must take action themselves, or they are considered passive characters - which is supposed to be avoided in a lead character whenever possible.
And Indy was plenty active in his other films.
Quote:
In Raiders, Indy was reactive, avoiding traps, and very nearly being left by his treacherous side kick.
Oh, okay. You are looking at the word in far too simplistic of terms.
Yes, he reacts to things, of course. But the point is - he was in that cave of his own volition, going after something. He had a clearly defined goal - something he was after. The reactive actions stem from that.
When the Gov guys came looking for info on the Ark, Indy took it on himself to go after it. Then he reacted as things happened, but the action was still driven by his choices.
Compare this to his being captured, dumped from a trunk, then being led around for the first act (and really, the entire film). He had no goal, he was a tool of others who had a goal.
Did you even read the article, or just stop with the heading???
Quote:
Also, I had no problem following the plot in Crystal Skull, which is supposedly muddled. Honestly, I think the way it got from point A to point B was fine, consistent with other Indiana Jones movies,
Muddled doesn't just mean hard to follow. It relates to tone, pacing, and flow. I bet you've seen plenty of bad movies that still made sense, but could have told their stories better.
It also has to do with how the exposition is delivered - is it done as part of the set-up in the first act, like in Raiders? Or is it done as part of the action, like Temple of Doom or Last Crusade? Or is it done in a pace-stopping 10 minute scene of people talking in a tend - halfway through the movie - like Crystal Skull.
Just making sense is the easy part. That doesn't make it good.
Quote:
And out of the Indiana Jones franchise, you want to complain about Crystal Skull when Temple of Doom exists?
It has some goofy stuff in it as well, but structurally, it's a much better script.
Temple of Doom is the only Indy movie where Indy actually has a positive outcome on the story. In all three of the other films, if Indy had just gone home halfway through, the bad guys never would have found what they were looking for anyway, and everything would have been fine.
Quote:
I dunno, I just think people are being too picky.
I think people are too eager to praise a bad movie that tickles their nostalgia bone.
But it's all subjective.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME