Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (James Mangold, June 30 2023)

[Brónach 1,301]

10 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

I have to admit that I had a similar kind of realisation when I discovered just how much James Horner and (to a lesser extent) JW owed to the classical composers of the past. That first time you hear Schumann's 3rd Symphony (Willow) or Death and Transfiguration (Love Theme from Superman), for example and you realise that your favourite composers aren't perhaps as original as you hoped, but then you realise that it matters less that it's not 100% original and that what they did with the music they referenced is to turn it into something of their own (as I've commented a few times, James Horner pretty much always manages to sound like James Horner no matter how much he pilfered from the classics and other film composers). Same goes for Star Wars which, while referencing these various things to a greater or lesser extent, is still its own thing. There's nothing new under the sun.

 

I find JW original in the sense that there's a strong and evolving JW musical personality that calls me back _to it specifically_ and not necesarily to his references

 

(same as with some of his references)

[Tom Guernsey 2,280]

7 minutes ago, Romão said:

I do feel that the influence of Death and Transfiguration on the Love Theme from Superman is a bit overstated, as I've always felt that what gives the theme its personality it's not so much the opening ascending phrase, but rather, the somewhat unexpected descending phrase that follows it.

 

I may be grossly misusing musical terms in my description, but please bear with me, I'm total musical layman

It was just an example and I am inclined to agree that it's only a few notes, although the harmonisation is fairly similar at the top of the phrase. Perhaps I should have referred to King's Row and Star Wars/Superman... but it wasn't meant to start a plagiarism debate, more just a frame of reference for that feeling you get when you realise your heroes aren't perfect but that you eventually get over it and love them anyway.

1 minute ago, Brónach said:

 

I find JW original in the sense that there's a strong and evolving JW musical personality that calls me back _to it specifically_ and not necesarily to his references

 

(same as with some of his references)

Totally agreed. He does have his own musical personality and in fairness, his later work is pretty much entirely his own and any references are far more coincidental rather than (I understand) the more obvious reference points he occasionally used in his late 70s/early 80s work.

[Chen G. 3,944]

5 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Perhaps I should have referred to King's Row and Star Wars

 

My understating is the main titles were temped with Rosza's Ivanhoe, not with King's Row.

 

George Lucas said in 1977 that in some places he and Williams wanted to tip the hat to their sources. So the places where the Williams' score sounds like the temp are intentional.

[Tom Guernsey 2,280]

Just now, Chen G. said:

 

My understating is the main titles were temped with Rosza's Ivanhoe, not with King's Row.

 

George Lucas said in 1977 that in some places he and Williams wanted to tip the hat to their sources. So the places where the Williams' score sounds like its antecedents are intentional.

I didn't know that, but cool choice, one of my favourite Rozsa scores. However, you can still hear echoes of main theme from King's Row in Star Wars and Superman. As I said, I'm not trying to get into a discussion about plagiarism or musical references, these are just examples of how JW has been inspired in the same way as Lucas was.

[enderdrag64 624]

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Its in the script that way. Lucas was convinced by a friend to include scenes of Luke's daily life, but only reluctantly so. If memory serves, Marcia actually lobbied to keep those scenes IN: I know she did the Jabba scene.

 

Marcia Lucas is scarcely the "saviour of Star Wars" that she's often said to be.

Yep and the reason she lobbied to keep those scenes in was most likely because those (and the trench run) were basically the only ones she worked on before leaving the project

[Chen G. 3,944]

I used to think so, too. But there's reason to believe Marcia did more work on the edit that the recent making-ofs credit to her. Earlier making-of books refer to her as the main editor of the film, and I think she worked on the edit for eight weeks straight which is considerable.

 

That still isn't to say she's the "saviour of Star Wars", of course.

 

4 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

However, you can still hear echoes of main theme from King's Row in Star Wars and Superman. 

 

I think its more a case of King's Row being the forebearer of the Rosza piece...

[Tom Guernsey 2,280]

14 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I think its more a case of King's Row being the forebearer of the Rosza piece...

Can't say I ever thought Ivanhoe sounded that much like Kings Row beyond both being big, brassy openings... but anyway, as I have said several times, this wasn't the point of my comment.

[Faleel 5,340]

Rozsa usually took his inspirations more from period/cultural music, than from other film scores.

[Chen G. 3,944]

I remember back in the day, Doug Adams was very skeptical of the King's Row angle: 

 

Quote

Although there is a superficial resemblance between the two, it may be stretching the point to dub Korngold’s theme the model.

 

[Brónach 1,301]

I was always struck by the first few seconds before the theme. and by the B theme. and by the preparation for the theme again. and by the bombastic horn line after that. the microscope analysis of a single thing only goes so far. the emphasis in the King's Row piece seems to me to lay differently in the melody too.

[mstrox 6,647]

Star Wars is my favorite Indiana Jones movie 

[Faleel 5,340]

[Tallguy 3,379]

58 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Marcia Lucas is scarcely the "saviour of Star Wars" that she's often said to be.

 

Of course not. Gary Kurtz is!

 

Seriously, just because George isn't the SOLE genius responsible for the success of Star Wars doesn't mean someone else is. Or that Lucas was some kind of hapless bystander.

 

We can all agree that Rick McCallum isn't.

 

We're going on a bit about Star Wars in this Indiana Jones thread.

 

How much of Raiders do we consider a George Lucas project and how much is it a Spielberg film? Or is it really the straight up collaboration we've always been told it is?

[Chen G. 3,944]

21 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

How much of Raiders do we consider a George Lucas project and how much is it a Spielberg film? Or is it really the straight up collaboration we've always been told it is?

 

Anything to do with the mise-en-scene is patently Spielberg, although I know Lucas helped a little bit with tightening the edit, too. Lucas came-up with the story in considerable detail in the story conferences (he had worked-up the concept with Phil Kaufmann circa mid-1975, and expanded it greatly for the purposes of the Star Wars sequel novel, Splinter of the Mind's Eye) but I don't think he wrote a single draft.

[enderdrag64 624]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

I used to think so, too. But there's reason to believe Marcia did more work on the edit that the recent making-ofs credit to her. Earlier making-of books refer to her as the main editor of the film, and I think she worked on the edit for eight weeks straight which is considerable.

What changed your mind?

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

51 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

Of course not. Gary Kurtz is!

 

Seriously, just because George isn't the SOLE genius responsible for the success of Star Wars doesn't mean someone else is. Or that Lucas was some kind of hapless bystander.

 

We can all agree that Rick McCallum isn't.

 

We're going on a bit about Star Wars in this Indiana Jones thread.

 

How much of Raiders do we consider a George Lucas project and how much is it a Spielberg film? Or is it really the straight up collaboration we've always been told it is?

 

Rick McCallum is many things. One thing he's not...

[Tallguy 3,379]

3 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Rick McCallum is many things. One thing he's not...

 

Is a boy scout.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

1 hour ago, Tallguy said:

How much of Raiders do we consider a George Lucas project and how much is it a Spielberg film? Or is it really the straight up collaboration we've always been told it is?

 

Anyone who reads the infamous Raiders story conference transcript has to concede that Lucas was the driving creative force behind Indy. He definitely had a vision for the character and film.

 

That said, a lot of his ideas were hair brained and some of them were...let's say, questionable. Spielberg (and Kasdan) definitely pulled him back from the ledge on some things. But Spielberg's role comes across more as a director trying to see someone else's vision, almost as a sounding board who is more reactive to ideas than proactive. His ideas, and he has some good ones, are more in response to what Lucas has put out there. It's also clear Spielberg is already sorting out the action beats, and how each scene will play out in the film. For example, Lucas says "Oh, and the hero has a whip", and Spielberg gets the idea that he'll use it to rope in the girl, or snap someone's belt so their pants fall off, that kind of thing. But Lucas was the clearly the idea person.

 

That's not to dimmish Spielberg's huge role. Obviously, Raiders would not have been Raiders had Lucas (or anyone else) directed it.

[Chen G. 3,944]

3 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Raiders would not have been Raiders had Lucas (or anyone else) directed it.

 

I think that's what it comes down to. Also, coming-up with a story in prose is not the same as turning it into a 110-page script that actually works, and since like I said Lucas didn't work on any of the drafts that I'm aware of, than credit goes to Kasdan, too.

 

The mechanics of the plot are what they are. Dramatizing them in a way that works: that's the real stuff of filmmaking. I can easily see the very same story beats translated into a script (and movie) that sucks the big one, and much the same is true of films like The Empire Strikes Back.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Its in the script that way. Lucas was convinced by a friend to include scenes of Luke's daily life, but only reluctantly so. If memory serves, Marcia actually lobbied to keep those scenes IN: I know she did the Jabba scene.

 

Marcia Lucas is scarcely the "saviour of Star Wars" that she's often said to be.

The whole ‘saved in the edit’ narrative makes me want to tear my hair out

[Faleel 5,340]

35 minutes ago, DarthDementous said:

The whole ‘saved in the edit’ narrative makes me want to tear my hair out

'How every movie ever was (sometimes, but not really) saved in the edit'

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

The whole "saved in the edit" narrative is so persistent because it happens to have the unusual quality of being true. Not just for Star Wars, but for most movies.

 

No, a good edit can't make a bad movie great. But there are no great movies without a good edit.

[Tallguy 3,379]

Star Wars wasn't "saved" in the edit. But it was certainly finished in the edit. And it was finished exceptionally well.

[Andy 4,087]

[Faleel 5,340]

A film editor is being sued, for saving a movie that didn't want to be saved.

[Edmilson 7,393]

It's one of the pillars of JWFan: to turn every thread into a Star Wars discussion.

[Andy 4,087]

 Verily. 

[Tom 4,639]

Pretty soon it is going to get so ridiculous that people will say Harrison Ford should be in a Star Wars movie.  

[crumbs 14,304]

Hard to believe the premiere is in just over a week!

 

Will be hard to find reactions to the score without film spoilers though...

[Amer 2,080]

The biggest response would be on how amazing the Younger Indiana Jones CGI looks and the industry will suddenly start shifting storylines increasingly to cash on this new wonder in much more intensive approach because so far its only been experimental where it has been a hit or miss here and there. 

 

Imagine a period drama or film with dear departed actors making comeback in small effective roles. This will be quite a gimmick with a lot of legal rhetoric along the way.

 

 

[Brónach 1,301]

14 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 His ideas, and he has some good ones, are more in response to what Lucas has put out there. It's also clear Spielberg is already sorting out the action beats, and how each scene will play out in the film. For example, Lucas says "Oh, and the hero has a whip", and Spielberg gets the idea that he'll use it to rope in the girl, or snap someone's belt so their pants fall off, that kind of thing.

 

this is generally why i like him

[A. A. Ron 1,740]

I don't think Star Wars was completely "saved in the edit," but I don't understand why anyone thinks George is some amazing visionary either. The man has had just as many terrible ideas as good ones and yes, his successes were absolutely made better by the contributions of the other storytellers in the room who would reject or change George's crazier ideas. I've encountered this narrative that Marcia Lucas saved Star Wars before. I've also seen a lot of salty fans insist that no one can make good Star Wars except George and maybe Favreau/Filoni. This line of thinking strikes me as an extreme reaction to the modern "made by committee" style of filmmaking. It's never any one thing that makes or breaks a movie IMO, nor is there ever a time when only one person or team of people could possibly do a project justice.

[Tallguy 3,379]

Never forget: Casablanca was made by committee. When it works it works.

[Tom 4,639]

5 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

Never forget: Casablanca was made by committee. When it works it works.

Star Wars wasn't made by a committee.  There was no time to discuss it.  

[Faleel 5,340]

[ThePenitentMan1 742]

If this body is not capable of action Indiana Jones discussion, I suggest new leadership is needed.  I move for a Vote of No Confidence in Chancellor Valorum's leadership.

[Brónach 1,301]

wasn't Indiana Jones technically made by committee?

 

and then shot very fast like a B movie

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

4 hours ago, A. A. Ron said:

I don't think Star Wars was completely "saved in the edit," but I don't understand why anyone thinks George is some amazing visionary either. The man has had just as many terrible ideas as good ones and yes

 

As many terrible ideas as good ones? Sure. That's something common among all visionaries.  He also stole a lot of ideas, which is something else common among artists and visionaries.

 

While I'm not quite at the @Chen G. level of scepticism, I've got a whole host of issues with Lucas, but I'm not going to deny that he was a visionary. That's silly. The fact that others helped hone and realise his ideas doesn't make him less so. Steve Jobs didn't actually make the Mac or iPhone, and as far as I know couldn't write a line of code.

 

Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time. He's made some of my favourite films. To my knowledge, with the possible exception of CE3K (which he deserves a lot of credit for) the vast majority of them have been the realisation or adaptation of other people's stories and ideas. Spielberg never would have come up with Star Wars, or Indiana Jones on his own.

[Chen G. 3,944]

50 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

While I'm not quite at the @Chen G. level of scepticism, I've got a whole host of issues with Lucas, but I'm not going to deny that he was a visionary. That's silly.

 

I just think he's more of a visionary in terms of the stories he conjures up than in the mise-en-scene (he, of course, insists its the other way around). I find the actual directing on both American Graffiti and Star Wars, his two best films, to be very workman-like: their success, it seems to me,  is in what Lucas put on the page.

[Tallguy 3,379]

(Oh good, we can talk about ANOTHER movie that isn't Indiana Jones.)

 

It's been a really long time since I've seen American Graffiti, but I gather his shooting everything at night really at night was rather revolutionary.

 

OTOH, he certainly wasn't able to get the kind of performance out of Ford (Indiana Jones!) that Kershner and Spielberg did (in an Indiana Jones movie!).

[Chen G. 3,944]

7 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

OTOH, he certainly wasn't able to get the kind of performance out of Ford (Indiana Jones!) that Kershner and Spielberg did (in an Indiana Jones movie!).

 

Yeah, he's famously not the best with actors, but I actually also find his blocking very meh.

 

My understanding is that he shoots very fast and plain: Puts a camera on a tripod, turns lights on (his movies tend to have very flat lighting), shoots a few takes, and on to the next setup.

[greenturnedblue 372]

Faster! More intense!

[Chen G. 3,944]

2 minutes ago, greenturnedblue said:

Faster! More intense!

 

Also "Do it again, only better"!

 

In fairness, it seems he's generally okay with letting the actors ad-lib some. But if your focus is getting through the setups quickly, you're not giving your actor a lot of opportunities to work something out: I think that's much more significant than the "Faster and more intense" thing.

[Brando 1,856]

17 hours ago, Tom said:

Pretty soon it is going to get so ridiculous that people will say Harrison Ford should be in a Star Wars movie.  

[A. A. Ron 1,740]

George has a great eye for visual design and a real knack for toy sales and general merchandising. You’ll never convince me that he’s a “visionary” filmmaker though. I’ve seen too many of his films.

[Chen G. 3,944]

15 minutes ago, A. A. Ron said:

a real knack for toy sales and general merchandising.

 

I do think of Lucas more as a producer that directs - there are plenty of those - than a director who produces. Its clear he inherited a very fine-tuned entrepenureal sense from his father. He's a genius businessman, and he ultimately - nobody chose it for him - decided to focus on that aspect of his personality rather than a directing career.

[mstrox 6,647]

George Lucas succeeded in spite of himself, and if he ever had a hint of movie magic in that beard of his, it was long gone by the time he found himself in a position where money was no object and nobody could say no to him.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

46 minutes ago, mstrox said:

George Lucas succeeded in spite of himself, and if he ever had a hint of movie magic in that beard of his, it was long gone by the time he found himself in a position where money was no object and nobody could say no to him.

 

For me the magic departed the moment he started making movies to sell toys, circa 1982 and ROTJ.

[Chen G. 3,944]

7 hours ago, mstrox said:

George Lucas succeeded in spite of himself

 

No, I don't think that's true at all.

 

I don't think any major form of human endeavour, like a big film production, can ever  be succesfull in spite of the person at the helm. Nor can I really tell a single instance where Lucas' cast and crew went rogue on him during the making of Star Wars: they mostly did what he asked them to do.

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

The success was planned from the beginning.