PDA

View Full Version : Time magazine article



Jedi Master Carr
Apr 21st, 2002, 09:09:43 AM
I just read this on the force.net, Time is coming out this week with a SW article with Yoda on the cover here is part of the article






Click here to discuss these stories in our Jedi Council forums.

Time Magazine Star Wars Special
Sun, Apr 21, 02 10:12:32 AM EDT

Here's the press release for the latest edition of Time Magazine which is on newstands now:

******************************************


COVER: Yoda Is An Action Hero
in the latest STAR WARS Feature


TIME Interview--GEORGE LUCAS:
'All democracies turn into dictatorships...That's the issue I've been exploring: how did the Republic turn into the Empire'

TIME's JESS CAGLE Was First Journalist To See the New Movie, Which Opens May 16

New York - Yoda is the real action hero of the newest "Star Wars" prequel opening May 16, reveals TIME's Jess Cagle - the first journalist to see the entire feature this past Thursday, at the side of creator George Lucas at Skywalker Ranch in Marin County, CA.

Now fully computer-animated, Yoda (who appears on TIME magazine's cover) is "no longer the endearing puppet animated by Frank Oz's hand" but is "both more supple and more thoughtful," Cagle reports. "Who'd have thought that our sedentary sage was such a deft martial artist, with lightsaber maneuvers...a Gandhi-turned-Rambo?"

In TIME's cover story, "Yoda Strikes Back!" An exclusive guide to the new STAR WARS movie, Episode II--Attack of the Clones" (on newsstands Mon., April 22), Cagle and critic Richard Corliss provide the most detailed view yet of the much-awaited fifth feature. Cagle talks to Lucas about how Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader - and political analogies in the latest "Star Wars" installment (some scenes remind TIME of Kofi Annan and John McCain).

Lucas tells TME about his own geopolitics, reflected in the features:
"All democracies turn into dictatorships--but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea. What kinds of things push people and institutions in this direction? That's the issue I've been exploring: how did the Republic turn into the Empire?...How does a good person go bad, and how does a democracy become a dictatorship?"

Lucas also opens up about how Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader:
"Because he gets attached to things...He can't let go of his mother...his girlfriend...things. It makes you greedy. And when you're greedy, you are on the path to the dark side because you fear that you're going to lose things. You fear you're not going to have the power you need."

Lucas admits to TIME that his 1999 Star Wars movie, Episode I--The Phantom Menace, was not universally revered - though it made $431 million at the North American box office, making it the fourth highest-grossing movie of all time (after Titanic, the original Star TIME 'Star Wars' cover story/p. 2 of 2) Wars, and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.) "I'm getting my education now from the press," Lucas says. "They come in and say, 'Wow. People hated your movie. What do you think about that?"

"There's only one issue for a filmmaker," Lucas tells TIME. "Will this make it's money back so I can make the next one?" With Phantom Menace, Lucas admits he did not know: "It didn't have Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher. It was not a slam dunk."

Lucas also talks with TIME about fatherhood ("My kids don't have a perfect life...they don't have a mother, and they just have to get over it"); making movies for 12-year-olds ("We had reached a period in terms of our society of not having a mythology, of not having a code that you pass down to the next generation"); demands of fans ("I can't really make a movie for fans"), and more.

Cagle and Corliss conclude Clones is "two hours of serious fun." By adding love scenes between stars Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen, Cagle and Corliss conclude the hit new feature "looks like Shaquille O'Neal standing three feet from the basket." Clones extends the franchise "from 12-year-old boys (the action scenes) to 15-year-old girls (the love scenes). If it works, Lucas has quite a combo: the Star Wars and Titanic markets in one package."

TIME also reports:

? Interview: NATALIE PORTMAN:
When she's not playing Amidala, actress Natalie Portman has been going to college and keeping a low profile. "When I'm at a restaurant with my parents," Portman tells TIME, "I don't want to be stared at." Yet last week she wrote a letter to the Harvard Crimson objecting to a racially-charged essay about the Palestinian conflict that appeared in the paper; her family immigrated from Israel. Portman has completed her credits for a B.A. in psychology but may go back for another year of college before the summer of 2003, when the next Star Wars film goes into production.

? Interview: HAYDEN CHRISTENSON:
Actor Hayden Christenson, 21, whose role as Anakin Skywalker, Jedi knight-in-training, will make him world-famous, tells TIME "I think I'm a pretty grounded individual and will handle it as well as anyone my age would...Or maybe I'll become a big mess. Who knows?"

? Digital Yoda:
Once rubber, Yoda is now digital for Attack of the Clones. "We didn't want to make him look like he was real," Lucas tells TIME. The digital Yoda remains remarkably true to the delicate puppetry of Frank Oz, who still supplies the voice, TIME reports.

? FIRST ENTIRELY DIGITAL FEATURE 'FILM':
Clones is the first major feature to be shot and, in certain theatres, shown on digital disks. "The result," writes TIME's Richard Corliss, "is a breathtakingly clear image that lends a superreal glamour."

? 'Star Wars' Effect:
The series' huge success "forever altered the way Hollywood made movies and did business," according to TIME. Now, "films are made for kids, especially teen boys." Once, "movies were one-offs; there was no 'Gone With the Wind II." Now, "Studios swing for the fences to get a megahit action film that can win name-brand recognition and be profitably cloned for years to come."


Time is getting it a very postive article especially Corliss who is a tough critic (he was one of the ones that hated TPM) but he seems to like this one. Now if Newsweek comes out with a postive article I will be shocked.

ReturnOfTheCB
Apr 21st, 2002, 02:44:24 PM
I don't mean to sound skeptical, but if Yoda does as much as that article infers...especially martial arts? That's quite a task to make believable...I mean...it's Yoda :) I will definitely be impressed if they pull it off though, that's for sure....

Jedi Master Carr
Apr 21st, 2002, 03:00:42 PM
Well they were impressed so I have a feeling we will too.

Sanis Prent
Apr 21st, 2002, 03:30:30 PM
From what I have seen in the script, comic, and from screenshots....it is a sight to behold, and you WILL be impressed.

JediBoricua
Apr 21st, 2002, 04:35:21 PM
Time to be schocked Carr!

Newsweek IS publishing a positive article about AOTC.

you can find it here:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/741646.asp?0bl=-0

Althought they have not seen the movie yet, they claimed to have intervewed sources that say that George finally got it, and that he heard what critics, fans and the average human disliked about TPM and has changed it for the new movie.

time to get excited...

sirdizzy
Apr 21st, 2002, 04:53:48 PM
time to been there for 6 months

Marcus Telcontar
Apr 21st, 2002, 05:08:37 PM
I'll believe it when the reviews start coming in.

But to be honest, AOTC IS looking better.

Jedi Master Carr
Apr 21st, 2002, 06:00:32 PM
I am shocked Newsweek was the harshest magazine on SW from the beginning (EW wasn't great but they were hyping up TPM before the movie came out then started bashing it.) I think things are looking good, of course I liked TPM so that says something.

JMK
Apr 21st, 2002, 09:31:21 PM
Things are looking better and better for AotC. If it's 2 hours of serious fun, then critics are going to have a hard time bashing it, after all ANH was 2 hours of fun...

Live Wire
Apr 21st, 2002, 11:52:57 PM
the critics are always biased against science fiction or fantasy movies. They'll find something to bash even if its the best movie of the year. They dont see it as having depth and immediately exclude it and claim movies no one in their right minds would sit through are better.

Starquest aka AndyR
Apr 22nd, 2002, 12:55:47 PM
I agree with Live Wire, plus...

George lucas has always done things his way and snubbed hollywood as often as possible, so all the classic critics hate him (IMHO) and try to trash his movies whenever possible. In the Time article, George talks about how he didn't want anyone changing what he did, so he made it so he would call the shots.
Hollywood hates people who call the shots....

JMK
Apr 22nd, 2002, 04:57:42 PM
They're upset that they don't share in the phenomenon that is Star Wars, and that they are unable to create anything like it.

Live Wire
Apr 22nd, 2002, 11:08:44 PM
its jealousy plain and simple. Half of the critics especially Ebert are movie snobs. The best they ever do is say its a good movie for its genre. As in saying yeah its a wonderful sci fi movie but as just a movie its trash thats just there purely for entertainment of sci fi nerds.

Jedi Master Carr
Apr 22nd, 2002, 11:11:37 PM
Actually Ebert loved TPM he gave it 3 and half stars and I personally don't see him as a movie snob, I think he is different Ebert and Maltin to me are the two best critcs.

JMK
Apr 23rd, 2002, 07:29:14 AM
The thing about those 2 are they are fair to blockbuster movies and don't necessarily tear them apart for being action packed adventures.

Starquest aka AndyR
Apr 23rd, 2002, 07:55:48 AM
the problem with most critics is that they are not "fans" of movies. They look at it as a job and nothing much more than that.
That is why I trust the fan site reviews much more than the critic reviews. a "critic" is just that - they are critical of everything. Sorry, but i would much prefer someone who likes movies, not someone who picks them apart.

Live Wire
Apr 23rd, 2002, 11:43:51 AM
I do remeber ebert giving TPM a good rating. But remember when it comes to movies like that they mean its a good movie for its type. Put it up against shakespeare in love (which I thought was a mediocre movie) and they'd say it was a piece of crap.

CMJ
Apr 23rd, 2002, 01:13:17 PM
Live Wire...you don't know what you're talking about...Ebert had both the Original SW and ESB on his Best Top 10 lists of '77 and '80 respectively. And this is no revisionist history thing...he had them on his lists THAT year(not like 15 years later he decided they should make it). TPM was an "Honorable Mention" of '99.... Obviously he liked them more than just genre pictures.

Live Wire
Apr 23rd, 2002, 01:29:18 PM
okay lemme clarify cause I realize my posts were kind of muddled.

I consider Ebert a movie elitist to a large degree just from what I've heared of his reviews over the years. I loved siskel cause he was normal and would tell ebert he was a snob from time to time. I miss siskel. Okay Im getting off track. End of Ebert rant.


Critics in general look at sci fi, fantasy,and animated movies and rate them according to genre. I didnt mean to say ebert did that specifically with TPM. Im saying the much of the critic community from what I see on tv and in papers seems to feel that way. And much of the movie community too. I could go on about specific pictures and reviews but I dont think anyone cares about movies I feel have been snubbed over the years and relegated to nominations for just costume and score rather then acting and directing and movie of the year.

Does that clear it up? Sorry I muddled two rants into one.

CMJ
Apr 23rd, 2002, 01:34:54 PM
Actually...it was widely reguarded by most people that Siskel was more on the "arty" side of the critical establishment and Ebert was on the more "populist" side. So if anything Siskel would fit more easily into your film snob theory.

I personally tend to agree with what the majority of the critical establishment thinks about 80% of the time. I guess I'm just a snob too. ;)

Live Wire
Apr 23rd, 2002, 01:41:08 PM
Well Im not most people lol. To me siskel was a little more real. Even if he didnt like the movie he said but I think most people will like it because. And there were several movies I remeber ebert liking and siskel told him you're crazy the general public will hate them and then indeed I found the general public hated them. They were both very "arty" (I like that word! :D) But siskel seemed more in touch with what people would like.

Im not picky about my movies. I like almost anything and so I dont agree with critics a lot. Even if the acting isnt academy award winning and the story is mediocre...if its fun and I laugh then I like it! Im easilly amused and most critics arent. Thats where the disention comes in.

Lilaena De'Ville
Apr 23rd, 2002, 02:11:38 PM
http://www.wearerobots.com/

^ you want arty? Pick the third robot on the left. I forget his name.

I don't like critics. They're...critical! I like to make my own decisions about movies. :)

Jedi Master Carr
Apr 23rd, 2002, 08:31:05 PM
I picked it up today and I was surprised there was a huge spoiler in it that The article said that Boba Fett was a clone of Jango I was surprised that time released that kind of a spoiler, without any warning.

Charley
Apr 24th, 2002, 03:33:48 PM
I officially put Ebert on my "shotgun enema" list with his review of Gladiator.

Die fatty, die!

CMJ
Apr 24th, 2002, 08:20:02 PM
Well that's a bit unreasonable Lounge Lizard...a disagreement on one film pushing you over the edge. I think I'm luck if I find a critic I agree with most of the time(like Ebert for example) so I cut him some slack when we disagree. I mean...my own friends' movie taste don't always match up with my own....

IN FACT, I doubt there are two people on this planet that would agree on every film(either liking OR disliking).

Charley
Apr 24th, 2002, 09:07:14 PM
No, its pretty profound. A review that harsh on a movie that good is something beyond the norm. I mean, he could've borrowed a few stars from TPM and donated them to Gladiator, and would be much more in the right. His reasons for the bad review were reeally grating. Because its "been done before".

Critics who cite that as a flaw deserve a boot to the face.

CMJ
Apr 24th, 2002, 09:09:34 PM
I had some friends that didn't care much for "Gladiator"...they're still my friends. Using your logic I should kick'em in the teeth. ;)

Charley
Apr 24th, 2002, 09:11:30 PM
But they aren't paid money to sit on their fat duffs and watch movies, then write what they think about them.

If they are...perhaps you should.

CMJ
Apr 24th, 2002, 09:14:20 PM
My point is LL...it's all about opinions. On "Gladiator" I happen to agree with you...incredible film. I'm sure we disagree on many however...and I would like to think my opinion is valid. Why is a film critic's OPINION any less valid than an average film goer. They are JUST as valid.

Charley
Apr 24th, 2002, 10:04:13 PM
My point is that "professional movie critic" is a big freakin farce.

JMK
Apr 25th, 2002, 07:23:59 AM
I think the difference is that most pro critics cite their reviews as fact and come off as arrogant for it. Of course they have to be forceful with their opinions or else they wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. My point? To take each review with a grain of salt, and see the damned movie for yourself!:p

Live Wire
Apr 25th, 2002, 01:44:56 PM
critics come off very arrogantly. I like the ones who say I didnt care for it because but I think these kind of people will like it. Instead of saying blankely its a horrible movie it was stupid and no one in their right minds would watch it and things of that nature.