What if Mel Gibson destroys the Death Star?

Actually Mark Hamill opted to perform in stage productions rather than screen ones in an effort to not be type cast.

On a different note, simply because Gibson auditions for the role, I'm not entirely sure he would be cast as Skywalker, since I'm not entirely sure he could pull off the starry eyed farm boy. However he may have been able to do it, he has never been in a role that required a similar portrayal.

Who knows, this might have reversed the fortunes of Mark and Mel.

Bill Cameron said:
He'll be younger than he was for Mad Max, he won't have had the schooling in did, and he'll be head over heels in a large Hollywood production. That means he won't or can't stand up for himself or any possible "darker" interpretation of the Luke character leaving Lucas' simple and simplistic "Mary Sue" to make it to screen with the same consequences.

I'm not up with the popular critique of George Lucas' hidebound vision. Sheesh, is there anyone on this board who thinks George is capable of thinking outside the box? (Okay, I'm not saying I believe the guy to be a great auteur. But the first trilogy is something.)

I think Mel not having the apprenticeship of NIDA and Australian productions could stunt him.

Though Heath Ledger didn't have much education IIRC.
 
I'm not up with the popular critique of George Lucas' hidebound vision. Sheesh, is there anyone on this board who thinks George is capable of thinking outside the box? (Okay, I'm not saying I believe the guy to be a great auteur. But the first trilogy is something.)


Magniac,

Lucas has a great vision...

... for special effects. And he can think out of the box...

... with special effects.

As for the first trilogy, Lucas isn't wholly responsible for the first trilogy. The second and third movies had other directors and other writers, he only had creative control with the first.

The trilogy Lucas did have complete creative control over was the second trilogy. Tell us, how do you like those movies? ;)

I saw the first movie as an adult and can thus look at it objectively. People who first saw it as children cannot. I saw the first movie as a long time sci-fi reader and can thus look at it objectively from that perspective. People who've never read sci-fi or, again, were children cannot judge the movie from that perspective either.

Star Wars was a SFX marvel. I goggled at the ships and robots and space scenes as much as the next patron. The story was also as threadbare as a cheap motel's towels and the plot was laughable when compared to anything Niven, Heinlein, or other sci-fi writers had been producing since the 50s.

In the hands of actually talented writers and directors, coupled with Lucas' SFX mastery, the following two films were somewhat better. The second trilogy, in Lucas' hands alone, were nothing but cringe-worthy.

What I'm trying to say is that, for people of a certain age, Star Wars wasn't and isn't some life altering movie. We were too old to get swept up in the brouhaha. To us, it's a series of fairly hokey, SFX-laden tales for children and nothing more.


Bill
 
Magniac,

Lucas has a great vision...

... for special effects. And he can think out of the box...

... with special effects.

As for the first trilogy, Lucas isn't wholly responsible for the first trilogy. The second and third movies had other directors and other writers, he only had creative control with the first.

The trilogy Lucas did have complete creative control over was the second trilogy. Tell us, how do you like those movies? ;)

I saw the first movie as an adult and can thus look at it objectively. People who first saw it as children cannot. I saw the first movie as a long time sci-fi reader and can thus look at it objectively from that perspective. People who've never read sci-fi or, again, were children cannot judge the movie from that perspective either.

Star Wars was a SFX marvel. I goggled at the ships and robots and space scenes as much as the next patron. The story was also as threadbare as a cheap motel's towels and the plot was laughable when compared to anything Niven, Heinlein, or other sci-fi writers had been producing since the 50s.

In the hands of actually talented writers and directors, coupled with Lucas' SFX mastery, the following two films were somewhat better. The second trilogy, in Lucas' hands alone, were nothing but cringe-worthy.

What I'm trying to say is that, for people of a certain age, Star Wars wasn't and isn't some life altering movie. We were too old to get swept up in the brouhaha. To us, it's a series of fairly hokey, SFX-laden tales for children and nothing more.


Bill

I appreciate this. I'm actually not a 'Star Wars' fanboy, and when I saw Jedi as a child even then I got the impression that there was something not quite right about the whole Wars universe. (Ewoks. It was the Ewoks that made me decide as an ankle-biter that these movies would never become an obsession for me.)

Though as a grown-up I was impressed by Empire. I thought the ending of that movie was quite poignant, and worked on a level comparable to the quality genre fiction I'd read.

I normally don't contribute to Lucas threads.
 
People who've never read sci-fi or, again, were children cannot judge the movie from that perspective either.
I'm one of those pedants who maintains a clear distinction between SF and Sci-Fi. Star Wars was definitely Sci-Fi in that split (or space opera, if you will). Fun movie(s) to watch (well the original ones), but nothing more.
 
Though as a grown-up I was impressed by Empire. I thought the ending of that movie was quite poignant, and worked on a level comparable to the quality genre fiction I'd read.


Magniac,

I was impressed by "Empire" also and thought it presaged better Star Wars films in the future. Then "Return of the Jedi" came out. :(

You know why we both were impressed by "Empire" and why it is considered the best film of the six? Take a look at the credits:

Directed by: Irvin Kershner

Writing credits:
George Lucas - (story)

Leigh Brackett - (screenplay) and
Lawrence Kasdan - (screenplay)

Note the relatively minor level of Lucas' involvement. Now, compare that to "Jedi's" credits:

Directed by: Richard Marquand

Writing credits:
George Lucas - (story)

Lawrence Kasdan - (screenplay) and
George Lucas - (screenplay)

More Lucas means more cringe worthy things like Ewoks defeating stormtroopers and recycled Death Stars. Now look at the credits for "Phantom Menace":

Director: George Lucas

Writer: George Lucas (written by)

Again as with "Jedi", more Lucas means less quality and, in this case, nothing but Lucas means nothing but crap.

I normally don't contribute to Lucas threads.

Me too. The series is over thirty years old now and it's hard for some people to understand that not everyone saw it for the first time as a child. Normal people, aside from the dress-up geeks, fell in love with as children. VCRs and DVDs meant a six-year-old in 1997 could be as amazed as a six-year-old in 1977 was. Those same people, again aside from the dress-up geeks, were extremely disappointed when the new trilogy came out. What went wrong, they asked, why did Lucas and Star Wars change?

The actual answer is that Lucas and Star Wars didn't change. Lucas has always been a second rate director and very poor screenwriter. Star Wars didn't change either, it was poor sci-fi, trite plots, laughable dialog, and lavish SFX from the first. The only thing that changed was the audience. Aside from the dress-up geeks, they grew up. They became adults and what they required from a movie changed.

Six-year-olds fell in love with "Phantom" when it was released in 1999 and six-year-olds will continue to fall in love with the series as their parents pop those DVDs into players, but six-year-olds grow up and their taste in movies grows up too.

Star Wars didn't change and Lucas didn't change. We are the ones who changed.


Bill
 
Last edited:
I'm one of those pedants who maintains a clear distinction between SF and Sci-Fi. Star Wars was definitely Sci-Fi in that split (or space opera, if you will). Fun movie(s) to watch (well the original ones), but nothing more.

Don't consider those two terms to be mutually exclusive. I tend to see Star Wars as more space opera or space/hi-tech fantasy myself. (Considering that the Force is really more of some sort of magical/quasi-mystical concept, that there is mention of an Empire (with an Emperor) and a Princess, and people who fight with energy weapons which are similar to swords- I'd say that was fantasy. Nothing really "scientific" about it, or at least trying to be real in the "hard SF" mould.)
 
Don't consider those two terms to be mutually exclusive. I tend to see Star Wars as more space opera or space/hi-tech fantasy myself. (Considering that the Force is really more of some sort of magical/quasi-mystical concept, that there is mention of an Empire (with an Emperor) and a Princess, and people who fight with energy weapons which are similar to swords- I'd say that was fantasy. Nothing really "scientific" about it, or at least trying to be real in the "hard SF" mould.)

What is so un-SF about Emperors?
 
Top