Actually, Lucasfilms doesn't take story ideas, the simply throw them out. Company policy. That's when I figured out that Lucas was a genius, but really stuck up

Posted by Indy Coil from pm6-21.northlink.com on November 25, 2000 at 23:13:14:

In Reply to: Re: I'd love to see another posted by Shawnkara on November 24, 2000 at 04:49:43:

: I've had nearly twelve years to come up with this, and I'll have to stick by it. I've really tried to like LC, but I just can't. It had its moments and you're right, the Hitler scene was great. I guess you'd have to understand the impact "Raiders" had on me as a kid and what it means to me now. I feel about LC the way most die hard "Star Wars" fans feel about "Episode I"; it just doesn't seem to fit. As far as Marcus goes yes, I did base my opinion of the character on the ten minutes in "Raiders". If the character was meant to be protrayed as he was in LC I have to believe we would have seen a trace of it from the start. It's called continuity. The lack of this shows that Lucas underestimated the appeal "Raiders" would have (regardless of what he claims in the interview in the remastered video, a comment made with twenty years hind sight) and failed to fully develop the characters. This did not matter with "Raiders", as it is the foundation, nor did it matter With ToD because Indy was the only recurring character. But first impressions matter a great deal, even in film and literature. If the creators of "Raiders" had really had any confidence in their work they would have been planning much further ahead and thinking of what may be required of the characters down the road. It would have been nice if they had realized that they were creating a cinematic masterpiece and thought beyond the closing credits but they did not. Take "Star Wars". It was written as an epic and later broken down into three films. The characters grow and slowly become three dimensional, yet remain consistent. No character in that series is a hero one moment and a moron the next. My impression of Marcus was one of a respected and influential man. The government agents in "Raiders" were leary of Indy. They really only wanted information on Abner, probally having the opinion that Indy was little more than a thief and a graverobber. Their sarcasm is subtle but evident as they struggle with hollow words of praise, ending uneasily by calling him "A man of many talents", "...obtainer of rare antiquities". When he explained what the Ark was they thought he was a lunatic, only the slender man showing a bit of optimism. Somehow Marcus is able to convince them to fully fund an expedition for a thief to find a magic box. It is he who, moments later in the film, tries to pull Indy's head from the clouds by delivering a stark warning. This is NOT a man who "Got lost in his own museum". If Lucas had to use him for comic relief in LC then it should have been that his intent on remaining proper and retaining control backfired on him consistently. They did not do this, they just turned him into an idiot. Indy's father was well portrayed by Connery, though. I feel that his eccentricity was well suited to the character and expalins why Indy had grown into such a stern man who scoffed at and quickly dismissed the supernatural and strongly supported the pursuit of fact, though constantly confronted with the contrary. However, Indy should not have have been the butt of every single horse-ass thing that Henry Sr. did. To answer your question, I've submitted three story proposals to Lucas Films and have never heard from anyone. Perhaps I routed them in the wrong direction, perhaps it's my fault, I don't know. But I do know character development. No, I don't think I know it all just because I write. Iv'e had to learn this over the past fifteen years, painfully, by writing a lot of stuff that wasn't even good enough to let my cats crap on. When I wrote my first novel, currently in negotiation for publication, I knew it would drag out into an epic. I'm still not sure what specific direction the subsequent chapters will move in but I had to lay out a basic structure, to know the characters and roughly what direction they were moving in, to know what they were ultimately capable of so that their later actions would come as a surprise but not seem inconsistent to that individual. Lucas as said many times that ToD was a dark film and he wasn't sure if people would like it. Maybe he honestly thought that such a bold move might kill the franchise, and I do have to admire him for taking such a bold risk. To me LC looks like he said "Shit, the acctually liked ToD. Now what?". My rambling two cents.....

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : I've had nearly twelve years to come up with this, and I'll have to stick by it. I've really tried to like LC, but I just can't. It had its moments and you're right, the Hitler scene was great. I guess you'd have to understand the impact "Raiders" had on me as a kid and what it means to me now. I feel about LC the way most die hard "Star Wars" fans feel about "Episode I"; it just doesn't seem to fit. As far as Marcus goes yes, I did base my opinion of the character on the ten minutes in "Raiders". If the character was meant to be protrayed as he was in LC I have to believe we would have seen a trace of it from the start. It's called continuity. The lack of this shows that Lucas underestimated the appeal "Raiders" would have (regardless of what he claims in the interview in the remastered video, a comment made with twenty years hind sight) and failed to fully develop the characters. This did not matter with "Raiders", as it is the foundation, nor did it matter With ToD because Indy was the only recurring character. But first impressions matter a great deal, even in film and literature. If the creators of "Raiders" had really had any confidence in their work they would have been planning much further ahead and thinking of what may be required of the characters down the road. It would have been nice if they had realized that they were creating a cinematic masterpiece and thought beyond the closing credits but they did not. Take "Star Wars". It was written as an epic and later broken down into three films. The characters grow and slowly become three dimensional, yet remain consistent. No character in that series is a hero one moment and a moron the next. My impression of Marcus was one of a respected and influential man. The government agents in "Raiders" were leary of Indy. They really only wanted information on Abner, probally having the opinion that Indy was little more than a thief and a graverobber. Their sarcasm is subtle but evident as they struggle with hollow words of praise, ending uneasily by calling him "A man of many talents", "...obtainer of rare antiquities". When he explained what the Ark was they thought he was a lunatic, only the slender man showing a bit of optimism. Somehow Marcus is able to convince them to fully fund an expedition for a thief to find a magic box. It is he who, moments later in the film, tries to pull Indy's head from the clouds by delivering a stark warning. This is NOT a man who "Got lost in his own museum". If Lucas had to use him for comic relief in LC then it should have been that his intent on remaining proper and retaining control backfired on him consistently. They did not do this, they just turned him into an idiot. Indy's father was well portrayed by Connery, though. I feel that his eccentricity was well suited to the character and expalins why Indy had grown into such a stern man who scoffed at and quickly dismissed the supernatural and strongly supported the pursuit of fact, though constantly confronted with the contrary. However, Indy should not have have been the butt of every single horse-ass thing that Henry Sr. did. To answer your question, I've submitted three story proposals to Lucas Films and have never heard from anyone. Perhaps I routed them in the wrong direction, perhaps it's my fault, I don't know. But I do know character development. No, I don't think I know it all just because I write. Iv'e had to learn this over the past fifteen years, painfully, by writing a lot of stuff that wasn't even good enough to let my cats crap on. When I wrote my first novel, currently in negotiation for publication, I knew it would drag out into an epic. I'm still not sure what specific direction the subsequent chapters will move in but I had to lay out a basic structure, to know the characters and roughly what direction they were moving in, to know what they were ultimately capable of so that their later actions would come as a surprise but not seem inconsistent to that individual. Lucas as said many times that ToD was a dark film and he wasn't sure if people would like it. Maybe he honestly thought that such a bold move might kill the franchise, and I do have to admire him for taking such a bold risk. To me LC looks like he said "Shit, the acctually liked ToD. Now what?". My rambling two cents.....

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]