Interesting Inside Info on SW2: Attack of the Clones

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Asher

I actually didn't like the first three movies much either. Rather typical good vs. evil, bad special effects (my standards are so much higher since I was only born in '83 ).

But ILM was a great spinoff, and being the first film to use Surround Sound are plusses.

But I've never understood why it's such a big phenomenon.

Your first parp. tell it all. You will be only 19 sometime this year. You grew up with Computer and Video games in the home. Star Wars came out 5 year before you were born. By the time you saw Star Wars it was 12 to 15 years old.
When I was a young boy (born 3/44) all sound was mono.
I can not remember when stereo came out (Late 50s I think). Surround Sound has been out since mid to late 80s? So for us older people it is a big deal. The first Stereo Card for a computer came out two week after I bought my 486 in Feb 92.

[Sava]

Hmmm... never saw Harry Potter, or read any of the books. I just figured I wouldn't like it. And, NO, I don't need to read them to find out I don't like them. I've never had a blunt object in my ass, and I know I wouldn't like that!

[Lonestar]

where the hell did that come from? Sounds a little defensive...

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
I just saw GF and GF2 a couple of weeks ago. I wasn't that impressed. It had a good story but was just too damn long.

If you have a short attention span Asher than the 175 minutes of GF and 200 minutes of GF2 is not for you

(JohnT takes this opportunity to talk about a real movie for a change, not this pop sciffy crap)

What???!!!??? "Not that impressed"????

This is the greatest guy movie ever - better than Cool Hand Luke (the sweatiest movie ever), better than The Dirty Dozen (did you cry when Jim Brown died?), better even than Braveheart. A bunch of men doing manly things talking manly talk - and not a mushy romance in sight! (Well, there's the Appolonia thing, but she died pretty damn quick)

The scene that, in my mind, really makes the two movies special: In the end of GF2 there is a flashback where the family is gathered to spring a surprise birthday party on Don Corleone. In the course of the scene Michael tells his family that he joined the Marines against his fathers wishes/plans. Sonny gets all pissed, Tom is irritated as hell, but Fredo... Fredo congratulates Michael on the first adult decision he made.

The only person who supported Michael, and Michael just had him killed. It breaks my heart every time I see Fredo shake Mike's hand.

God! Look at the talent the movie introduced: Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, James Caan, Francis Ford Coppola, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, hell, even Abe Vigoda got his break in the Godfather. Is there anybody in this film who is even a little miscast? No. Al Lettieri - the perfect Sollozo. Sterling Hayden - the perfect corrupt cop. And Al Pacino... my God, to think that this was just his second major motion picture! Is there any colder stare in cinema than Michael Corleone's?

The amazing thing about the Godfather is the difference between original conception and final product. Had Robert Evans (head of Production at Paramount) had his way, the Godfather would've been set in the 1970's, starred Ernest Borgnine and Ryan O'Neal (as Don and Michael Corleone respectively), and dealt with pimps and pushers.

A correction: Somebody in this thread made mention of SW being Harrison Ford's breakout role - wrong. He was in American Graffiti and The Conversation long before SW.

Trivia: George Lucas shot all the newspaper inserts that you see in the Godfather.

"If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone."

[monolith94]

Frankly, from reading your other illuminating posts, I'm sure you shouldn't read them, and you wouldn't enjoy them.
Couple of points to make:
Darth Maul was a mime.
Return of the Jedi is my personal favorite of the three. It just is. I really love the ending lightsaber duel.
I personally doubt that Lucas takes the same attitude that Wraith does concerning Jedi Lightsaber battles from the glory days. I personally think he just throws in the action because it's expected, mandatory.

[monolith94]

I wouldn't exactly describe Harrison Ford's performance in american graffitti as "break-out"...

[MrBaggins]

Yep... Harrison would have never gotten the later roles were it not for StarWars.

[JohnT]

That is not exactly true, but it isn't provable now so arguing about it is futile. But Harrison was one of the stock actors that Lucas and Coppola often used in the 1970's (sorta like De Niro and Scorcese in the early days).

I would argue that the later roles (I'm really thinking Indiana Jones here) wouldn't have been available had it not been for Star Wars' success.

[MrBaggins]

Whilst he may have acted a couple of times before, it wasn't steady work.

Harrison Ford was a carpenter before Star Wars.

Read the Hello magazine profile of him

It was a classic case of Hollywood kismet when the carpenter at MGM Studios landed the lead role in a blockbuster movie. Out-of-work actor Harrison Ford was fitting an office door for Francis Ford Coppola when a studio executive, testing actresses for a new film, asked the good-looking workman to help out by reading the lines written for the male lead. The hero was called Han Solo and the movie was Star Wars – the rest is legend.

[JohnT]

Asher: "But I've never understood why it's such a big phenomenon."

Hell, I'll tackle this one. Imran's explanation is a little... lacking. After all, most pieces of fiction has protagonists and antagonists... that SW has them is nothing special, of course.

1977. If there is a "dark period" of American history, it would obviously be between 11-22-1963 and 1-20-1981 (from Kennedy's assassination to the release of the Iranian hostages). Films too were dark - in story, in character, hell, even the cinematography was dark. The quality films of this decade were bleaker and more demanding than anything done in American cinema before or since, and IMHO, audiences probably got tired of one depressing ending after another.

Star Wars literally came onto the American cultural landscape at the time when it was its darkest, and to many people it was a breath of fresh air. It was dazzling, it was exciting, it was fun, the good guys won, the bad guys lost, and it just looked freakin' AWESOME! For once you actually felt good coming out of the theater - try doing that after Taxi Driver/Network/Chinatown.

You complain about bad f/x, but honestly Asher, that's just youth talking. No movie other than 2001 had decent F/X before SW (yes, I'm probably over-generalizing - it's almost midnight, fer chrissakes!) and it was SW that showed just what could be done with them. To an audience that was used to... well, 70's F/X, SW was truly something to behold.

SW also really changed the way that Hollywood approached movies and it is responsible for the infantilization of American cinema since 1977*. Why make movies for 30 year-olds when SW proves that 12 year old boys will pay full-ticket prices to see the same movie over and over (a new phenomenon with SW)? Why bother trying to gross a measly $20 mil. with a very disturbing Taxi Driver when you can gross $190+ mil. (first run, non-inflation adjusted figures) with the non-controversial SW? Star Wars pioneered the cinema of moments: of images, sound, and other stimuli increasingly divorced from the story - it's why it makes great video games. When it was all done, SW and its clones returned the increasingly mature 70's audience to pre-1960's "Golden Age" of cinema and it's simplicities. As Pauline Kael put it, SW infantilized the audience by reconstituting the spectator as a child rather than a thinking, rational adult: by overwhelming us with sound and spectacle, post-SW Hollywood has pretty-much obliterated the American audience's appreciation of irony, self-consciousness, and critical reflection. So thoroughly did SW make the future safe for itself that the original trilogy could be released in 1997 and gross $250 mil+, while the simultaneous re-release of The Godfather, an immeasurably better film, paled by comparison. We are the children of Lucas, not Coppola.

*This isn't just my opinion. Here is a quote from Marcia Lucas, who edited not only Star Wars but also Taxi Driver and a number of other 70's classics: "Right now, I'm just disgusted by the American film industry. There are so few good films and part of me thinks Star Wars is partly responsible for the direction the industry has gone in, and I feel badly about that."

[MrBaggins]

Star Wars was the original 'Titanic'

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Whilst he may have acted a couple of times before, it wasn't steady work.

Harrison Ford was a carpenter before Star Wars.

Read the Hello magazine profile of him

It was a classic case of Hollywood kismet when the carpenter at MGM Studios landed the lead role in a blockbuster movie. Out-of-work actor Harrison Ford was fitting an office door for Francis Ford Coppola when a studio executive, testing actresses for a new film, asked the good-looking workman to help out by reading the lines written for the male lead. The hero was called Han Solo and the movie was Star Wars – the rest is legend.

This is so incorrect, it isn't even funny. Did you even look this up in another source to verify its veracity? Harrison Ford appeared in a GEORGE LUCAS film called "American Graffiti" in 1972 and in a FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA film called "The Conversation" in 1974. You're making it sound like he never even thought about being in the movies when he PURPOSEFULLY AUDITIONED for Star Wars.

[MrBaggins]

No... i'm saying his BREAKOUT role was Star Wars

Acting was not a steady job for him... I.E. not continuous employment or no need for other financial support, before Star Wars.

[MrBaggins]

To follow up...

Born on July 13, 1942, in Chicago, Illinois, Harrison, the son of ad exec Christopher and homemaker Dorothy, was hardly the leading-man type at Maine Township High School East. In fact, he claims he was the class wimp. His star began to rise after he enrolled at Wisconsin’s Ripon College, where he caught the acting bug and began performing in student plays. The would-be star launched his professional acting career at the age of 21 when he signed a $150 a week, seven-year contract as a studio player in Los Angeles. Working in minor roles in film and TV, he earned his way as a carpenter even after he got his break with a small but memorable part in the 1973 flick American Graffiti. Four years later, aged 35 and still struggling, he finally shot to fame in Star Wars and followed up with roles in the Vietnam War drama Apocalypse Now, sci-fi thriller Blade Runner and, of course, two sequels to the George Lucas epic that made him famous.


Notice he was earning $150 a week, not enough to live on. He didn't need to be a carpenter after Star Wars.

[JohnT]

:sigh: Do you know about www.imdb.com? It says quite clearly that Mr. Ford appeared in 4 projects in the 4 years between AG and SW. 1 movie a year isn't exactly "no means of financial support" nor is it a sign of acting not being a "steady job."

His days as a carpenter ended with American Graffiti, regardless of what the PR people might want you to believe.