Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars, the Lost Interviews
smooth wombat writes "Coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the Release of Star Wars, Ballantine Books is publishing J.W. Rinzler's "The Making of Star Wars", which bills itself as "The Definitive Story Behind the Original Film." The book is the result of Rinzler's discovery of interviews that Charles Lippincott, Lucasfilm's VP marketing and merchandising in the mid-'70s, conducted with the film's principals between 1975 and 1978."
Your delivery could use some work, but I agree this is just another money grab. The "lost interviews" reveal shocking secrets such as the fact that the original Star Wars was made on a shoestring budget! Amazing! And I thought the effects in the original were so incredible, and looked so expensive, including the totally not obviously drawn-in light sabers and the totally convincing cuts during the scene where Obi Wan gets killed. Oh, and the acrobatics during the light saber duel! It totally didn't look anything like a couple of arthritic old farts hitting each others' walkers, it was totally fast-paced edge-of-your-seat stuff. I was convinced that no expense was spared.
Oh, and hey, they had issues getting the special effects to look right! And Lucas wasn't sure that the film was going to be a success! Unbelievable!
Everyone already knew all of this stuff. The people involved have said this sort of thing countless times. Now, we have period interviews that say pretty much the same stuff that they said in later interviews.
This is a book about Star-Wrs sans the latter myths.
From a cinima history perspective, this could be interesting.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I am glad I was old enough to enjoy Star Wars when it was first released. I knew little about it other than it was supposed to be great. Saw it in a large theater. Like any great movie, in my opinion, it grabbed me right off and I knew this is something special. I always will remember the boarding scene with Darth and the storm troopers, right there you knew this was going to be good. Or to paraphase Bette Davis, "Hang on tight, it's going to be a great ride..." While special effects are good they don't hold a candle to the barroom scene where you need to see it several times to take in all that is going on.
said things he later denied saying (e.g. there's going to be 9 films, etc).
And this is why he fails...
Ok, enough of that.
Seriously, for him to completely forget the original production of the trilogy is exactly why I won't give another red cent to the man. The fact is that all he has done is bastardize the original three movies with these new editions that were "the original vision". And worse, he has given us the new trilogy that, while telling of a story, was sorely lacking. I mean, I think there are some good elements, but all in all, as a whole, they sucked.
It is really too bad that Lucas has missed the boat with celebrating the original versions of his films, which were highly revolutionary and landmarks of their time.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
And yet, they were still better than anyone had ever seen before...
The special effects in that movie were beyond groundbreaking at the time. Very few movies in the 70's even HAD special effects. 20th century fox disbanded their special effects department.
Case in point: In 1976 the special effects academy award winner was Logan's Run. That movie was absolutely pathetic in comparison, and yet was considered to be the best special effects for its day.
Thanks,
Mike
the sfx in star wars were nothing short of staggering for the time.
You can only really say that in context with the number of special effects. Close Encounters came out the same year and if you were to put two snippets of both films side by side Close Encounters would win hands down. The effects in CEOTTK are clearly better. Superman came out a year later and the same could be said for it in the same context of doing more with the effects but simply having less of them. Ultimately it's an argument that has no clear winner aside from pointing to the budget of the film. Even then it's hard to win the argument that SW had "staggering" effects.
you are clearly about 18 years old and didnt see the original theatrical release.
Talk about an argument that got really old about two decades ago. Not everyone who walks that planet who was alive to see the originals (myself include, FYI) in 1977 latched onto Star Wars and held it high like a gift from God. Methinks that much of the wonderlust that still trails on from the original trilogy is more the smoke and mirrors of time over anything truely magical about these films. If you love it, you love it. I won't say that you're wrong. But to assume that because there are those of us (yes, I do mean myself included) who don't really go crazy over Star Wars are too young to recall the glory of Lucas is about as insightful as the Matrix fanbois who ran around for years shouting "If you didn't like the Matrix it's because you didn't understand the Matrix". It's annoying, it's petty elitism at it's worst and it's utterly false.
as such you have fuck all perspective on it.
Fantastic conclusion. What you're basically saying is that if you don't hold Star Wars on high as God's gift to sci-fi circa 1977 that you were either too young to experience it or that you have no appreciation for special effects? Does that mean that those 30-somethings today that may have just been old enough to remember Jedi in the theaters are saved from your self-righteous wrath? What does it say about those of us who did see it in the theaters who just weren't amazed by it to the point that 30 years later we can take it or leave it for what it is?
Get over it fanboi. The glory days of Lucas seem to have come to a screeching halt. The "staggering" effects of your little lovechild here lack the luster that you claim from movies made in the same couple of years. It's fine to be a fanboi on some levels but at some other point you have to turn around and understand that just because something is important to you doesn't mean it was the pinnacle of achievement.
"And I wonder, oh yes I wonder, will Elvis* take the place of Jesus in a thousand years..." -The Dead Kennedys
* Feel free to substitute "Lucas" for "Elvis".
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
It's fine to be a hater on some levels but at some other point you have to turn around and understand that just because something isn't important to you doesn't mean it wasn't the pinnacle of achievement.
"But this one goes to 11!"
2001 Did have a lot of groundbreaking effects... very true... but they didn't have to deal with alien dogfights, "laser" weapons, and explosions, either. 2001 was certainly one of a kind, as well. Nothing came close to it until Lucas' Star Wars came around.
Thanks,
Mike