Kenneth

Dennis,

As long as we don't have to appologize to you like the captain did to DV in TESB

I agree that as the director of Star Wars Lucas was supurb. However, I think his track record for follow on efforts was sporatic. I stand by my pick of Jackson as director :p)

I will grant several points in Lucas and Star Wars direction:

If there had been no Star Wars there never would have been a LotR's trilogy on the big screen. I think Lucas broke down too many barriers that allow the Sci Fi/Fantasy genre to be a successful choice for budding directors.

I think the risk of Star Wars was far greater than the risk of LotR's both for Lucas personally and for the film studio. Lucas was a rising star and was risking a promising career on a project few expected success from (of course he was repaid financially for that risk down the road ). The risk for Jackson wasn't as great since he was a relative unknown when he started LotR's.

SW is a more traditional myth (in movie form) than the LotR which had to refocus some of the mythology in adapting Tolkien's work to the silver screen.

Bottom line. I think they are both great films that will stand the test of time and will (and should) appear in film history books.

Kenneth

Quentin

I am surprised this hasn't gotten uglier faster...

It's hard to compare the two, and even harder if you throw in "The Matrix". SW is a saturday matinee western. LOTR is "Lawrence of Arabia" on psychedelic steroids. "The Matrix" is a mind-bending, kung fu, sci-fi war movie.

They each take their unique genre combinations and run with them very well.

I think giving Jackson the nod for direction is tough - SW had three different directors! And, personally, I'd take Irvin Kershner over any of these guys!

It's also hard to compare writing and/or dialogue. You're talking original vs. adaptation. Obviously, any time LotR cribs from Tolkien, the writing and dialogue soar. But, I also give full credit to such wonderfully quotable lines as "laugh it up, fuzzball."

RobertR

Dennis:

I don’t completely dismiss Lucas as a director. I simply say that Jackson did a better job. I see none of the “incoherence” you refer to–not in editing, not in the performances, not in the dialogue. I thought Lucas was a promising young director because of his first three films–THX, AG, and SW. But he digressed, and today isn’t even close to Jackson as a director.

JonZ

"I think Gandalf would kick Yoda's ass...."

I never read the books, but this was one of the most diappointing aspects of these films.If Gandalf is such a great wizard why was he swinging a sword during the battle scenes - where were the locasts,fog,lightning,earthquakes,fire,etc?

I think Excaliburs Merlin or Dragonslayers Ulrich would wipe the floor with Gandalf(yes even Yoda would -Gandalf wouldnt stand a chance agains the little wrinkled ones lightsaber attack)

I cant believe Im even having this conversation.We sound like the guys from Welcome to Eltingville

RobertR

That's why you don't understand. Gandalf and others were strictly limited in what they were allowed to do. That said, it's absurd to talk about what a character in fictional story A would do to a character in story B (I'm reminded of the scene in Stand By Me where someone says Superman would beat Mighty Mouse because he's "real"). You would simply be making up a THIRD story with whatever "rules" you imagine.

Lew Crippen

Another difference is that while Peter Jackson directed all three LOTR movies, Lucas only directed the first Star Wars movie. Given that he only directed one-third of the original trilogy, it does not make too much difference how strong he is as a director.

For what it is worth (and I can’t speak for Kenneth, Lou, Swawn, Andy RobertR or Michael), I think very highly of Lucas as a director. So much so that in the AFI challenge, I have given American Graffiti my ‘masterpiece’ rating of four stars.

¡Time is not my master!

Kenneth

It's kind of a prime directive thing Gandalf was there to guide primarily, not be an overwhelming force (that's what got Saruman in trouble).

Or alternately, "locasts, fog, lightning, earthquakes, fires, etc; that is the path to the dark side."

Kenneth

Haggai

I think your argument for Lucas having had more at risk than Jackson makes sense, in that Lucas was just coming off a massive success with American Graffiti, but I don't think Fox had more on the line with Star Wars than New Line did with LOTR. Remember that Fox was just committing to the one Star Wars movie, with a not-small-but-not-huge-either budget, with no assurances at all of any sequels. New Line committed up front to three movies, at a pretty frickin' high cost--what if the first one had bombed? They might have lost their shirts.

Perhaps this also argues for Jackson having had as much on the line as Lucas, in some sense: had Star Wars flopped, Lucas still might have been "that guy who made two sci-fi flops but kicked butt with American Graffiti" within the industry, but Jackson with a LOTR flop would have been "that guy who made some low-budget splatter movies in New Zealand and then bankrupted a studio." Which one would have had a more difficult career path ahead of him? Maybe Jackson.

JonZ

ok got it

Kenneth

Except that because of the LotR's franchise reputation they were able to presell the release rights. Although Hollywood books never seem to show a profit for some reason they were actually well on their way to profit even before The Fellowship of the Ring was released. Also, considering how much video rights can be worth now they had a lot of fall back opportunities that didn't exist in '77.

However, I agree that had either film not succeeded it could have been career ending for the director (I think Lucas had more to lose since his star was very high after AG).

Kenneth

Haggai

I'm pretty industry-ignorant here--what does that mean? If the movies had bombed at the box office, they still would have lost out on tons of money, right?



That's a good point. Also with all the merchandising/video game tie-ins as well. It was none other than Lucas who pioneered that concept, as he was talking about toys and other cross-promotional tie-ins before the first movie was released, even when there was widepsread fear among people associated with it that it was going to bomb. Nobody took him seriously when he talked about parlaying a movie into a multi-media franchise, especially not one based on original material.


True, but my point was just that if Star Wars had flopped, the AG success might have been a life-line for him, with some studio execs saying, "OK, keep him away from all this sci-fi stuff that nobody wants to see, and maybe he'll make us some money." What did Jackson have to fall back on, Meet The Feebles?