Hypothetical: What kind of movies should Lucasfilm make?

curmudgeon

Well-known member
Back when Kathleen Kennedy was first hired as co-chair and future head of Lucasfilm, it was suggested that she would bring an increase in film production to the company. And that this would include not just new SW/Indy projects, but also original projects.

While it seems like that idea took a backseat to Star Wars in the wake of the Disney deal, for the sake of this thread lets assume she can get Disney to greenlight some newly created stuff.

So, A - What kinds of films do you think would best fit the Lucasfilm brand?

and B - What kinds of films would you like to see them make?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
A) Staying true to the brand, she should get back to George's intention of making "art-house" movies, as he talked about in 1999. In his own words, "films that won't make any money".

B) None. I don't want Lucasfilm films without Lucas. The company's name should be changed, in my humble opinion.
 

kongisking

Active member
I would love to see more art-house films from them, but we all know it likely isn't to be. By this point, Lucasfilm is synonymous with epic franchises (Sorry, Stoo, I'm not speaking purely about movies. There's not denying half of the company's fame is from not only the movies they make but the huge multimedia expansions of them). And casual film-goers will revert to "It's Different, Now it Sucks".

But that said, I'd dearly love for them to also explore other throwback movies beyond Star Wars and Indy. That should be their stock-and-trade: re-imagining old defunct genres and breathing new life into them. Make a modern-day spaghetti Western. Make a 30's detective noir thriller. Make a 50's giant monster movie, even. Though, that one seems set to finally get the comeback it deserves thanks to the upcoming Godzilla...
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I'm lazy...what dy'all mean by art-house films? And no, don't google it for me...just 'splain it to me plainly.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
kongisking said:
And casual film-goers will revert to "It's Different, Now it Sucks".
Such a public reaction has been happening for almost 2 decades now so negative repercussions wouldn't be too much different. Lucasfilm now has the opportunity to gain enormous respect if they travel in a completely, opposite direction. Exploiting old genres has already been done to its fullest. Time to get creative and do something completely NEW.
kongiskong said:
Make a 30's detective noir thriller.
"Noir" films weren't a genre of the 1930s.;)
Pale Horse said:
I'm lazy...what dy'all mean by art-house films? And no, don't google it for me...just 'splain it to me plainly.
Ha. You, of all people, Pale Horse. Don't be lazy and Google it, dude.:cool: Your esteemed colleague proposed such a thing in this immediately-closed thread from EGG-zactly 3 years ago (minus 1 day ago). :p

"Art house" were George's words (which is why I used the term with quotation marks) during the press junket on the eve of "Phantom Menace".

Artistic, visionary films like Lucas' STUDENT VERSION of "THX-1138" are what I'm thinking about. Have you ever seen that? It's a sign of brilliance but a film made in that style would surely not rake in billion$ of dollar$ at the box-office. It requires too much thought from the popcorn-munching audience.

If you truly don't know what the term signifies, Pale, then you've definitely been living in the Hollywood & Disney neighbourhood for much too long! :p
 
Last edited:

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Honestly, I don't see much of a future for the Lucasfilm brand outside of Star Wars and Indiana Jones. If its a struggle to keep the studio executives, and even the general public, enthusiastic about Indiana Jones as much as Star Wars it'll be a much, much bigger struggle to get people intrigued about original ideas that could really go either way. Red Tails didn't leave much of an impact...

Walt Disney built an entire empire, creating a variety of content using different mediums, so it makes sense the company would still exist under his name today. Lucas only made a handful of films to begin with, so it'd be pretty difficult to determine what project would fit a 'Lucasfilm Project'. The only thing I could see working outside of Star Wars and Indiana Jones would be an adaptation of "Monkey Island".

As far as George Lucas' film career goes, I wouldn't be surprised if Lucas never makes his "experimental films" he's been talking about for decades. Assuming he does get around to making one or two, they'd probably be distributed by independent companies like David Lynch's Inland Empire or Lucas' mentor's, Francis Ford Coppola's, recent films.
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Stoo said:
Ha. You, of all people, Pale Horse. ..

"Art house" were George's words (which is why I used the term with quotation marks) during the press junket on the eve of "Phantom Menace".

Artistic, visionary films like Lucas' STUDENT VERSION of "THX-1138" are what I'm thinking about. Have you ever seen that? It's a sign of brilliance but a film made in that style would surely not rake in billion$ of dollar$ at the box-office. It requires too much thought from the popcorn-munching audience.

If you truly don't know what the term signifies, Pale, then you've definitely been living in the Hollywood & Disney neighbourhood for much too long! :p

Well, Art House in Hollyweird, and Art House at the Raven can be different, so the lazy question wasn't completely a brain fart.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
Well, Art House in Hollyweird, and Art House at the Raven can be different, so the lazy question wasn't completely a brain fart.

A brain fart is a crime. Your brain must not fart.

This is your last chance to return with us. You have nowhere to go. You cannot survive outside the city shell. We only want to help you. This is your last chance.

Or you could just sit there while we poke you some more with our big sticks.

thx1138-prison.jpg


Afterwards we will take to our leader.

walt_disney_frozen.jpg


Interlude.

Followed by a short film about prairie dogs.

073.jpg


And...

Fade to white.
 

kongisking

Active member
Stoo said:
"Noir" films weren't a genre of the 1930s.;)

.....really? I thought some of the most iconic noir detective movies came out in that period, such as The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep (both, incidentally, starring my man Bogart).

This is what I get for not Googling first, I suppose...:eek:
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Pale Horse said:
Well, Art House in Hollyweird, and Art House at the Raven can be different, so the lazy question wasn't completely a brain fart.
Your only sin was not making this clarification in the first place.


As for the answer to the question presented in the thread topic: Porn.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
kongisking said:
.....really? I thought some of the most iconic noir detective movies came out in that period, such as The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep (both, incidentally, starring my man Bogart).

This is what I get for not Googling first, I suppose...:eek:
Those were both '40s movies (and John Huston's & Bogart's "Maltese Falcon" is often considered to be the 1st noir film). Every day is a learning experience, Kong. Don't sweat it.;)
Pale Horse said:
Well, Art House in Hollyweird, and Art House at the Raven can be different, so the lazy question wasn't completely a brain fart.
Fair enough.:) However, I've been looking for the video recording that I have of him discussing this and can't find it. I thought it was during his "60 Minutes" interview in '99 but it's not. He may have said something other than "art house" (perhaps "experimental") but the sentiment regarding his planned direction was pretty evident. He did say, "films/movies that won't make any money"…followed by a chuckling smirk.
Forbidden Eye said:
Honestly, I don't see much of a future for the Lucasfilm brand outside of Star Wars and Indiana Jones. If its a struggle to keep the studio executives, and even the general public, enthusiastic about Indiana Jones as much as Star Wars it'll be a much, much bigger struggle to get people intrigued about original ideas that could really go either way. Red Tails didn't leave much of an impact...
Unfortunately probable, Forbidden Eye.:( It's doubtful that the money makers at Disney are interested in taking risks.

What I'd like to see is a complete 180° turn. Lucasfilm is associated with big spectacle & visual effects. I say, forget all of that business and pursue a totally different avenue; something more cerebral. It doesn't even need to be science-fiction or pseudo-historical. It could be something as radically different as character-driven dramas, love stories or contemporary biographies.

They should make something as down-to-earth as "American Graffiti", which is what put George on the map in the 1st place.

I can't help comparing the situation to "The Colour Purple". When that came out, it was totally different from anything Spielberg had directed before, yet it was praised by audiences and critics alike (and, to this date, I've never met anyone who thinks it's a poor film).
Forbidden Eye said:
As far as George Lucas' film career goes, I wouldn't be surprised if Lucas never makes his "experimental films" he's been talking about for decades. Assuming he does get around to making one or two, they'd probably be distributed by independent companies like David Lynch's Inland Empire or Lucas' mentor's, Francis Ford Coppola's, recent films.
That's the problem with the Disney ownership. Lucasfilm had become the largest "independent" film company because George, himself, started financing his own films. It's a different ball game now.

Thanks to the internet, it's not possible for Lucasfilm to unleash a radically different film onto an unsuspecting public and then let the audience determine its quality. These days, such an endeavour is impossible because the George Lucas name will be red-flagged & targeted with scrutiny from Day 1 onwards.
 

kongisking

Active member
Stoo said:
Those were both '40s movies (and John Huston's & Bogart's "Maltese Falcon" is often considered to be the 1st noir film). Every day is a learning experience, Kong. Don't sweat it.;)

Grumble. Knowledge is for dummies. ;)

Stoo said:
They should make something as down-to-earth as "American Graffiti", which is what put George on the map in the 1st place.

I very strongly agree. Graffiti was such a wonderful movie, and proof that Lucas did, at least once in his life, have stupendous talent. Hence, why I just want to pulverize the morons that retroactively claim he never had talent and just 'got lucky' with the original Star Wars. Episode IV remains an expertly crafted movie on it's own, even if not quite as artful and intelligent as Graffiti. If Lucasfilm could go back to doing such films, in addition to a healthy output of genre throwbacks, I'd be happy as a gilmore.

Stoo said:
Thanks to the internet, it's not possible for Lucasfilm to unleash a radically different film onto an unsuspecting public and then let the audience determine its quality. These days, such an endeavour is impossible because the George Lucas name will be red-flagged & targeted with scrutiny from Day 1 onwards.

I see your point, and it's depressing. Didn't Fantasia get lukewarm reception back in the day for being so artsy and experimental? Those jackasses effectively killed Walt's dream of having a new Fantasia every couple years, to help further push the envelope of the art-form.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
As for the answer to the question presented in the thread topic: Porn.

Art House Porn.

THX_1138-2.jpg


Something for everyone.

kongisking said:
Didn't Fantasia get lukewarm reception back in the day for being so artsy and experimental? Those jackasses effectively killed Walt's dream of having a new Fantasia every couple years, to help further push the envelope of the art-form.

Might have been a lucky break.

"Fantasia was released in 1941, while LSD was first intentionally ingested on April 19th 1943. The book Psychedelics Encyclopedia states that during an interview animators confessed that hidden images were placed in Fantasia specifically to be viewed under the influence of mescaline, a synthetic form of peyote first synthesized in 1919."

http://paullaffoley.net/writings-2/walt-disney-and-josef-albers/

Paul Laffoley said:
In 1933, when Black Mountain College opened in Asheville, North Carolina, its artistic director was Josef Albers (1888-1972) the last head of the Bauhaus before the Nazis closed it. The contract for Albers and his wife Anni was offered by the American architect Philip Johnson (1906-2005). By 1935 Walt Disney (1908-1966) got wind of what was up. He rushed to get an interview with Albers explaining that no one had understood so far the artistic implications of the new field of animation. When they met Albers was not amused with Disney’s vision of cute nature. The meeting ended with Albers blowing up saying, “I will not allow any American kitsch to infect the minds of ‘my’ students.”

Disney was astonished but not deterred from his mission. He sensed, however, that Albers’ “will to power” was more sexual and mature than his, which was more neurasthenic and analytic. The comparison made Disney angry. Pretending to leave, he began to question the students away from the watchful eyes of Albers, about the nature of their life at school and who their teachers were. At that moment Disney began to realize just how much he disliked the European attitude of paternalism, which he had just experienced close up. He did, however, discover the way the students “escaped” from the school in the summer. They all went to Chihuahua in Northern Mexico. There the students would eat wild peyote derived from the buttons of the mescal cactus. In its refined form it is mescaline- the hallucinatory crystalline alkaloid: C11H17NO3. The students would, of course, look forward to the summer hiatus, not realizing that the faculty was secretly fostering their use of peyote because of its antispasmodic capabilities. Most of the European faculty knew that sensitive Americans were not used to being taught by artistic tyrants like Josef Albers, Walter Gropius (1883-1969) or Adolf Hitler (1889-1945).

By 1936 Disney was taking mescaline on a regular basis and as a result his most famous work appeared: “Fantasia.” In 1940 it became a staple of American cinema, the year it was launched. While “Fantasia” appealed immediately to children, its adult understanding did not develop until the mid-60’s, years after Black Mountain College ceased to exist. What happened, of course, was that the hippie generation (the cultural grandchild of “Wander Vogels”-“The Wandering Birds”- the German youth after World War I, in a disenfranchised state) was the first group to recognize “Fantasia” as the first American “stoner movie.” What was still not understood was that the entire ensemble was also a vicious satire in the tradition of Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) or Francois-Marie Voltare (1694-1778).

The structure of “Fantasia” consists of eight pieces of fairly well known European musical compositions, spanning the years from the 18th century to the early 20th century. Disney, himself, had never natured musically as his audiences never had, thus allowing him to work his animation to all ultimate degree. In fact what he did to “The Rite of Spring” was considered by the composer Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971) to be deemed unforgivable. To these compositions Disney juxtaposed his own animations which acted as programmed literary synesthetic visuals, very much in the vein of the hallucinations one might experience from advanced and compulsive alcoholism, such as seeing “pink elephants.”

...
 
Last edited:

Le Saboteur

Active member
kongisking said:
.....really? I thought some of the most iconic noir detective movies came out in that period, such as The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep (both, incidentally, starring my man Bogart).

Incidentally, he can't be your 'man' if you don't know what popular phrase Bogart was said to have coined.


Noir was never an accepted genre until... about 1973. Despite Nino Frank first using the term way back in 1946, the directors and screenwriters weren't trying to capture a particular aesthetic. Since the productions were considered "B-movies" the budgets were often paper thin, the lighting, the cigarettes, fog, etc. were all attempts to hide cheap looking sets.

Both The Maltese Falcon (1941) and The Big Sleep (1946) came out during the classic noir period of 1940-58. Two film versions of The Maltese Falcon came out in the thirties following the books publication in 1930. The pre-Hayes Code version of 1931 is pretty code good, but has more in common with the Cary Grant pictures of that day. 1936's Satan Met a Lady turns the whole thing into a lighthearted comedy, and is best forgotten about.

1931:

maltesefalcon.jpg


1936:

12-william-davis.jpg


1941:

screenshot-med-09.jpg


Feel free to add the '41 version to your list of remakes that are superior to the original.

Stoo said:
...and John Huston's & Bogart's "Maltese Falcon" is often considered to be the 1st noir film

First novel? Absolutely. Hammett created the genre, but 1940's Stranger on the Third Floor is the first film noir. Fritz Lang's work of the late thirties, especially M, are some of the early forerunners.

The actual view from Spade's & Hammett's apartment.

4066646517_240103c5e1_z.jpg


Useless bit of trivia: Knopf released The Maltese Falcon to unsuspecting readers on Valentine's Day of all days.
 
Last edited:

kongisking

Active member
Le Saboteur said:
Incidentally, he can't be your 'man' if you don't know what popular phrase Bogart was said to have coined.

.....um, how do you know I don't already know this? Though, to be fair, there are a crapton of quotes Bogart made famous, so you may be referring to one specifically. I can list off the top of my head a couple of them, most from Casablanca. Possibly the term "hill of beans"?
 
Top