PDA

View Full Version : Why should Star Wars be different?


Jedi_Monk
12-18-2002, 12:45 AM
Stephen King gave Stanley Kubrick permission to make a Shining movie. King hated the final product, but he'd already signed the contract. Most he could do was demand that they take his name off of it (not change the name of the movie, mind). Since then, King has bought back the movie rights to The Shining, written the script and produced a new, made-for-TV movie that was much more true to what he had in mind.

No difference here. Lucas signed over the rights, signed the legally binding contracts. Decided he didn't like what they were doing and so he discarded it when he got the chance to return to his universe.

In Jurassic Park, the novel, Mr Hammond died... obviously, he survived the movie and reappeared in The Lost World. Because Spielberg decided he wanted a happier ending, should Crichton be bound by that and ignore what he had previously written, for the sake of maintaining continuity with the movie?

True, the above two examples are books that were turned into movies, but why should Lucas' creation be any different? So he chose to use the visual medium of cinema to tell his story in, rather than telling it in novel-form. But why should that make such a huge difference?

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

Jedi_Knight_27
12-18-2002, 12:58 AM
the jurassic park novel that i read hammond didn't die and a bit of news for you lucas first put star wars: a new hope into a novel then decided he was going to try to turn it into a movie and that is where the beginning of the star wars saga starts. nothing is ever said about it for some reason i guess it's because the movie (s) went over so well

BobaJango
12-18-2002, 01:18 AM
On the contrary, Hammond DID die. I don't know which novel you're reading, but he did die. You're probably reading the novel that was released after the movie. Both books were completely different from the movies. Reading them and watching them were two very different experiences. For instance, in the movie, Muldoon goes out to kill the Velociraptors, he is instead killed by them. In the book, he lives. But yes you're right, he did take it from novel to movie.

ET Warrior
12-18-2002, 01:23 AM
And once again Jedi_Monk brings to light a brilliant cross reference, showing off his vast knowledge and smarts....:D

I love you Jedi_Monk! (in a purely plutonic way of course)

BobaJango
12-18-2002, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior.
And once again Jedi_Monk brings to light a brilliant cross reference, showing off his vast knowledge and smarts.... :D

I love you Jedi_Monk! (in a purely plutonic way of course)

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
ditto :)

Admiral Vostok
12-18-2002, 03:00 AM
There's nothing wrong with it. As long as you understand the only "true" Star Wars is what we see in the movies, not read in the books.

Yes, Hammond did die. I seem to remember Malcolm dying too, but he's the main character in The Lost World (book and movie). So somewhere Crichton has seemingly accepted the film's events over his own book. After all, he did co-write the Jurassic Park screenplay...

Purple_Tentacle
12-18-2002, 08:15 AM
hammond fell down a hill and the compys ate him.

malcolm died of his leg wound.

BobaJango
12-18-2002, 03:59 PM
Malcom died in the first book, but returned in the second. It said that news report claimed him to be dead. Well, he wasn't. Hammond was more of a "brat" in the book as opposed to the movie. Guess Chricton liked Malcom so much he decieded to bring him back from "the dead.":D

Keiran Halcyon
12-19-2002, 03:26 PM
Unfortunately, as cool Malcom can be, Alan Grant should have been the Main Character of the Lost world. I'm sure Malcom would have not gone to Isla Sorna to investigate about Extinction....

Well at least he was on JPIII, and i hope he is in JPIV....

George Lucas CAN do what he like with his universe, but there are things that puzzle me. For example, would it have hurted alot if the Saber colors included yellow, crimsom, orange.... Thank goodness Coruscant is as it has been always (did lucas invented this planet?).

Jedi_Monk
12-19-2002, 03:55 PM
Thank goodness Coruscant is as it has been always (did lucas invented this planet?).
From the database on starwars.com:
The earliest incarnation of Coruscant appeared in the rough draft scripts of Star Wars, when the Imperial capital world was known as Alderaan. Subsequent rewrites briefly changed its name to Granicus before dropping it from the A New Hope storyline altogether.

The Imperial capital world was resurrected in the draft scripts for Return of the Jedi, this time as Had Abbadon. The script described a city-covered planet plagued by pollution and home to the Emperor's throne. Practical considerations of realizing this planet on screen, as well as the evolving storyline of Episode VI, resulted in the capital world again being abandoned.
So the concept of the city-covered Imperial capital world was created by Lucas, but the name was taken from the EU.

http://members.aol.com/dannilalfletch/Jedi_Monk.jpg

Keiran Halcyon
12-19-2002, 04:11 PM
Hey, maybe they asked lucas, 'come on, tell us a name for the imperial capital' when Zhan was Writting his book, he said Coruscant and Coruscant it is...