Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Good old Star Wars, still contradicting itself after several decades.

And what is so fascinating is that there is still stuff left to uncover. Because it's production spanned continents, and it was pre-Internet, so much of it relies on recollections of the thousands of folks who overall contributed in one way or another.

After Rinzler's books (as well as the Unoffical History, which may be heavily repetitive but does have some great stuff in it) - I really thought we had mined out the bottom. What else is there to know?

Then I started listening to the audiobook of How Star Wars Conquered the Universe. I'm only about 1/3 into it's 20 whopping hours, but I have to say I think the reviews are accurate so far. There is a lot of stuff I didn't think I cared about that he made interesting, and overall there is just a new take on a lot of stuff from what I have heard so far. Reserving final judgement until I'm done, but so far - very interesting book.

It's funny, it made me think of this thread already once - we were just talking about re-used sets/props, it might be well known but I had never heard the origins of the Krayt skeleton in Star Wars. Apparently, they forgot $5K worth of equipment in the UK when they left for Tunisia, and since they couldn't rebuy it locally, they had to pay $22K for a plane to deliver it. Since the plane had a bunch of extra room, they sent along a cast dino skeleton from a Disney production a few years before at the studio that they happened to find in the meantime. They used it as set dressing (and it's still in Tunisia to this day, according to some googling I did).

There also was a brief implication that Fisher and Ford had a tryst during Star Wars - it went so quickly I went "huh?" but I had never actually heard that said (I feel like maybe hinted in Rinzler, ever so briefly?). It's not a salacious book at all, LOL, don't get me wrong - it was just off-handedly mentioned when talking about the marijuana story Carrie tells (how she smoked until one day some of Harrison's "did her in" and she hasn't smoked since).

Sure would explain some of that chemistry in ESB, that love/loath combination that makes them so fun to watch together.

[Geoff D]

I personally love to see what goes into the details of the making of a film that I like. Prequel versions would definitely be a drier read than the OT 'making ofs' - although the pressure that went into making Ep I was immense, the DVD documentary is testament to that - but I've been fascinated by the technical titbits in Knoll's 365 book, and seeing as I'm not nearly as dismissive of the artistry it took to make the prequels as some folks, such 'making ofs' would get a warm welcome in my house. As such, I'd rather not read about it filtered through Secret History's somewhat partisan viewpoint.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm not nearly as dismissive of the artistry it took to make the prequels as some folks, such 'making ofs' would get a warm welcome in my house. As such, I'd rather not read about it filtered through Secret History's somewhat partisan viewpoint.

Just to be clear, though, don't mistake my feelings there is a lack of Rinzler-book-worthy stuff to discuss in the depth he goes for discounting the art that is being done. Permanence issues aside, I don't think digital art is less than other forms of art, simply that as you said, the documentation would be much drier (much, much). I would say the same about a similar written account of the blow-by-blow of the making of a great painting or sculpture - it's such an internalized pursuit and would be highly repetitive.

And since so much of it is internalized (again, guy sitting at a computer) and the bulk of the work is not "collaborative" in the immediate. Sure, just one CGI creature takes a huge list of people to make it - but they are usually working individually at a station, on one specific assigned part (the left eye, for example). In essence, it's completely a collaborative effort in the most pure sense, but each contribution is largely a silent person at a computer lost in thought.

A lot of what makes the "day to day" log style of Rinzler's books interesting and compelling is that, particularly for Star Wars, but even on the latter films - what a sense of a "guerrilla" film-making atmosphere and folks doing stuff that had never even been attempted before. Even though he was experimenting more with it than really anyone else, CG wasn't exactly an "unknown" quantity even then (and they themselves did the "test runs" with the SE's). So while I am sure there is some interesting anecdotal stuff ("We had a lot of trouble with this character's XXX, when it was animated it would look XXX, so we redid it multiple times until it is as you see it in the film.") it would again be extremely repetitive.

But beyond that, just in general - a huge chunk of Rinzler's books is about the writing and the drafts and the story meetings and about how wildly the story changed moment to moment (really, none of the films, but particularly ESB, really turned out anything like their original drafts - completely different films). That's because there were so many people involved. For the prequels, it was George, in a room. Rick McCallum banged on the door every once in awhile and said, "George, you OK in there?" And then one day George comes out with a script. That's pretty much it, aside from some dialogue punch ups by Carrie Fisher.

Basically, the way the Prequels were made just doesn't lend itself to a blow-by-blow, hour-by-hour sort of thing like Rinzler's books. I think there have been so many various "Making of..." books about the prequels out there that they pretty much cover it all - and many cover just specific aspects, very deeply (costumes, etc.) for these reasons, because it really was the most streamlined, rank and file, "studio" type production imaginable (Lucas himself lamented this - he wanted to avoid the "studio" style of filmmaking but ended up becoming his own studio, out of necessity).

When what makes everything about the OT so fascinating from a production stand point and interesting to read about in the Rinzler books is that they were almost like guerrilla film making no matter how much money they were spending.

As to the Secret History - I completely agree, very slanted, but - the one thing the guy is full of is facts and documentation, even if his assumptions about their meaning may be slanted quite a bit. And he chronicles the prequels pretty well in terms of time line of events, which is something I haven't seen elsewhere. Aside from that, I think just about every other aspect of the prequels was so well documented and published and exploited at the time (how many books? at least a dozen, and I'm probably low-balling it), that a unifying work really wouldn't do it any favors.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Basically, the way the Prequels were made just doesn't lend itself to a blow-by-blow, hour-by-hour sort of thing like Rinzler's books. I think there have been so many various "Making of..." books about the prequels out there that they pretty much cover it all - and many cover just specific aspects, very deeply (costumes, etc.) for these reasons, because it really was the most streamlined, rank and file, "studio" type production imaginable (Lucas himself lamented this - he wanted to avoid the "studio" style of filmmaking but ended up becoming his own studio, out of necessity).

You and Geoff D make good points (as usual)!

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I personally love to see what goes into the details of the making of a film that I like. Prequel versions would definitely be a drier read than the OT 'making ofs' - although the pressure that went into making Ep I was immense, the DVD documentary is testament to that - but I've been fascinated by the technical titbits in Knoll's 365 book, and seeing as I'm not nearly as dismissive of the artistry it took to make the prequels as some folks, such 'making ofs' would get a warm welcome in my house. As such, I'd rather not read about it filtered through Secret History's somewhat partisan viewpoint.

Most would think that simply binding together some green construction paper would be sufficient for such a project, perhaps with a wireframe image of Jar-Jar on the cover for added effect...

[rickah88]

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by rickah88

[Geoff D]

Again Billie, I've gotta disagree. You (and others, see above) still persist with this blasé notion that the films were seemingly CG from beginning to end, when that simply was not the case. Even though they'd done a handful of CG effects here and there, ILM did not know whether they could pull off the 2000 VFX shots needed for Phantom Menace, they were flying on the seat of their pants just as ILM were in that lockup in Van Nuys in 1976, and they were pioneering techniques that directors take for granted now (like David Fincher and his split-screening of takes to combine the best performances). Whether the effects are made out of polymers or pixels, both sets of movies have a human story behind them about people breaking boundaries which is what Rinzler is so good at articulating.

As for the scripts, the PT still had to go through a writing process just as they did on the OT, so speaking to George and Tom Stoppard and Carrie Fisher about what concepts were tried out and then junked through various drafts would be fascinating to me to see where the story could have gone, just as the OT books revealed a bunch of tasty nuggets of info.

And there's the protracted post-production process of each movie, going through various reshoots as George realises that his movies don't work as well as he wants them to. As I said before, that bit in The Beginning (on the Ep I DVD) when Lucas and Co. watch a rough cut of Phantom Menace and they come out looking shell-shocked because it's so bad is one of the most candid behind-the-scenes moments I've ever seen in a DVD documentary, and I'd wager that there'd be plenty more drama to be uncovered by someone like Rinzler, like with the sandstorm that battered the Tunisian sets.

The great thing about Rinzler's books is that they don't overwhelm you with one particular aspect of the process, they're about the drafting of the story, the writing of the script, the pre-production process, shooting and then post-production, and as far as I know the PT went through ALL of those processes just as the OT did. As easy as it is to assume you'd just be reading about a legion of pale white guys hunched over computers, Rinzler would make sure that that's only part of the book.

Sure, if you only care about the OT from that classically blinkered viewpoint then I'm banging my head on a brick wall trying to explain this - that Lucas didn't just point at a computer and say "Do!" - but having read several prequel 'making ofs' I can tell you that none of them go into the sort of fascinating day-to-day detail about the nuts-and-bolts of filmmaking as the Rinzler OT (and Indy) books do, and collectively they're certainly no substitute for Rinzler's ability to craft a narrative out of such material.

[Geoff D]

Oh, and if we're gonna go down the route of dismissing the work on the prequels as cookie-cutter mass-produced products from 'Lucas the studio head surrounded by yes men' rather than 'Lucas the indie filmmaker', then I'll level the EXACT same charge at Return of the Jedi. Even though Larry Kasdan was involved, the story was an uninspired retread (another Death Star, wow) that sought to quickly tie up the saga with certain left-field story revelations, the Ewoks were there simply to sell toys, ILM were in a groove by then so there's no need to eulogise so much about the work they were doing, and LFL had gotten rid of Gary Kurtz and brought in Howard Kazanjian to produce.

They also brought in Marquand as a steady director who wouldn't rock the boat, and Lucas effectively ghost-directed the film anyway having been on set shooting second unit (waiting for the first unit to finish which meant he was usually 'available' to give advice to the principal actors ), and he took over the film during post production, sending Marquand on his merry way once he'd delivered his contractually-obligated first cut of the movie.

Point being, Rinzler still put together a story worth telling about the most "corporate" of all the OT movies, which is why I think a set of prequel 'making ofs' would also work under his auspices. They won't happen of course, so "this bickering is pointless", but what can I say? I'm in a prequel-defendin' mood today, pards.

[rickah88]

WHAT!!! The Star Wars saga is not perfect - Childhood ruined!

[Galactus123]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Here are the shots taken off the screen of the dye print. Of course, these are not a perfect translation, but you can get a good sense at just how much better the skin tones and overall color is (assuming your monitor is not way off). The Blus are so far off. I can only imagine how awesome it would have been to be there!

http://savestarwars.com/technicoloribscreening.html

Here is more photos and videos from the screening:

http://photos.petergaultney.com/Movi...ator/i-GnX2777

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh, and if we're gonna go down the route of dismissing the work on the prequels as cookie-cutter mass-produced products from 'Lucas the studio head surrounded by yes men' rather than 'Lucas the indie filmmaker', then I'll level the EXACT same charge at Return of the Jedi.

And you'd be right, pard.

Jedi and the prequels were disappointing in many of the same ways and for many of the same reasons.

I'm not sure how that helps with your defense of the prequels but it's spot on nevertheless.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Yeah, it was hard for me to see just how bad Jedi's flaws were until I had watched Menace and then Clones. By holding the two latter up against the original films, it was easy to see that Lucas was starting to loose his s*** by Jedi. We never should have begged him to make more films, but then again, who could have known at the time that Jedi's goofiness was anything other than a one-time fluke.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Here are the shots taken off the screen of the dye print. Of course, these are not a perfect translation, but you can get a good sense at just how much better the skin tones and overall color is (assuming your monitor is not way off). The Blus are so far off. I can only imagine how awesome it would have been to be there!

How can you tell? It's a picture from a camera off a screen, nothing's been calibrated either. Not to mention prints have a whole different gamma range than video transfers.

[Falaskan]

Ian McDiarmid makes me overlook all of ROTJ's faults. He's makes ROTJ epic, imo.

[Deathbymonkeys]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

Ian McDiarmid makes me overlook all of ROTJ's faults. He's makes ROTJ epic, imo.

He's absolutely my favorite villain of all time BECAUSE of ROTJ. Easily the best bad guy performance I have ever seen. And his sinister evil stares and slow grab of power in the prequels just sets it up even more. Absolutely perfect casting.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Yeah, it was hard for me to see just how bad Jedi's flaws were until I had watched Menace and then Clones. By holding the two latter up against the original films, it was easy to see that Lucas was starting to loose his s*** by Jedi. We never should have begged him to make more films, but then again, who could have known at the time that Jedi's goofiness was anything other than a one-time fluke.

The difference though in my opinion is that Return of the Jedi still had enough character and emotional payoffs (particularly in the finale) to be a good movie, even if it was definitely the weakest of the three original films. I love the first and last 20 minutes of the movie, but it kind of meanders in the middle with silly cutesy Ewok stuff.

But yeah, in retrospect, you can kind of see how RotJ was sort of a taste of what you could expect for The Phantom Menace, which increased the goofy light-hearted aspect up ten-fold. Although really I didn't think Clones or Sith had those elements in it-- those I just thought were relatively dull, static films lacking the character and heart of the older movies.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

How can you tell? It's a picture from a camera off a screen, nothing's been calibrated either. Not to mention prints have a whole different gamma range than video transfers.

Agreed, but have you watched the Blus on a properly ISF calibrated display? The color issues have been discussed ad nauseam. The skintones in those shots look far better than similar scenes on the blus...and not too mention the blue tint on the blu-rays.

[DCW]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

Ian McDiarmid makes me overlook all of ROTJ's faults. He's makes ROTJ epic, imo.

He delivers his dialogue is so good in RotJ. One of my all time favorites:

"Your overconfidence is your weakness."
"Your faith in your friends is yours."

Such a great exchange.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

The difference though in my opinion is that Return of the Jedi still had enough character and emotional payoffs (particularly in the finale) to be a good movie, even if it was definitely the weakest of the three original films. I love the first and last 20 minutes of the movie, but it kind of meanders in the middle with silly cutesy Ewok stuff.

But yeah, in retrospect, you can kind of see how RotJ was sort of a taste of what you could expect for The Phantom Menace, which increased the goofy light-hearted aspect up ten-fold. Although really I didn't think Clones or Sith had those elements in it-- those I just thought were relatively dull, static films lacking the character and heart of the older movies.

Not to mention they go nowhere with Hans character and it's much wasted on leading an army of Teddy Ruxpins.