From: tlg4@po.CWRU.Edu (TJ Goldstein)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars
Subject: Re: Canon...the Official Word from Lucasfilm.
Date: 6 Sep 1992 13:55:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: tlg4@po.CWRU.Edu (TJ Goldstein)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, walrus@bessel.umd.edu (Grig Larson) says:

>>sex, virtually non-existant gratuitous violence. By today's standards
>>these make Disney flicks look XXX! Sad to say, I tend to think the
>>only way the new Star Wars films could be "successful" in today's
>>market would be for more violence, more sex, less plot, more
>>destruction, etc.. or, in other worlds, be everthing Star Wars was
>>not.
>>
>>Just my thoughts.
>>
>>Michael
>
>I disagree.  Ever see some of the other movies that came out in the 1970's?
>I mean, yeah, as far as grossness and violence, we might have rivaled an
>actual armageddon in movie f/x, but if a plot is good, and the acting strong,
>it'll beat "Blood-sucking Alien Vampire Sluts of Vietnam" any day.
> 
>"Home Alone" was REAL successful, and just as much violence and sex as the
>Star Wars saga.  I belive it's doable, and I hope if Lucas undertakes these 
>movies, he'll avoid the "sure-fire gore attractors."
> 
>ObStarWarsRumor:
>
>A friend of mine was one of the budget accountants of "T2" and said that they
>had some interesting reactions from ILM during the shooting.
> 
>They had to get some stuff over with quick and that the studio would not be
>available "for a year on one of the boss's projects."  The boss, I believe
>is Mr. Lucas himself.  My friend is *sure* it's Star Wars related.  I told
>him about the secrecy thing, and he said it is a lot easier to hide things
>in Hollywood than you might think.
>
>1: They could be doing shooting posing as other movies.  Not just the "Red
>   Tails" rumor we had a while back, but actually a real movie already out
>   now could have "hosted" it's studio for a few shots for another film.  So
>   the new trilogy might be done in parts in T2's studio, for example, and
>   if someone asked, you'd say "Oh, in there?  Yeah, T2 is shooting there."
>2: If you are told by a studio NOT to leak out something, you had better
>   do so, or, as the saying goes, "you will never work in this town again!"
>   Getting jobs in studios is hard enough.  You need flawless refrences, 
>   because no one in their right mind would rehire that guy who spilled the
>   Klingon refrence for Star Trek 6 anymore.  That guy's probably sweeping
>   a McDonald's now.
>3: They kept the Manhattan Project a secret, didn't they?  And that had
>   Richard Feynman (RIP) the loudmouth on the payroll! :)  If the bumbling
>   Gov't can do it, so can a streamlined private corp.
>
>But, my question is, "Why keep it a secret?"  How would you profit from a
>surprise release?
> 

Well, what are we talking about here?  We're speculating and getting
anxious.  If we knew about it, we'd soon know about the plot, and then
we'd discuss that to death, and by the time the thing came out, we'd
be all anxious to see it, but the phenomena wouldn't last as long.

Also, if he starts the hype too early, soon after it comes out, the
mundanes will be sick of the topic.

-- 
Assistant Sysop, SF&F Sig       (GO SCIFI)|TJ Goldstein
Primary Sysop, CWRU Safety Sig (GO SAFETY)|tlg4@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu
Chat Coord., Academy One Sim's   (GO ACAD)|
"I don't have all the answers.  I've never been dead before."  --- Ro
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars