Moviedrome #7: Story by George Lucas
Here’a a killer. I mean, how can anyone possibly separate these? This odious job falls to you, discerning KB-ers:
Empire Strikes Back vs. Raiders of the Lost Ark
As proven by the Star Wars prequels, we all know that George Lucas can’t direct. He also can’t write dialogue. But the neckless-bearded-one does know how to write a great story. Hence Empire (screenplay by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan; directed by Irvin Kershner), and Raiders (screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan; directed by Steven Spielberg). Both movies sprang from the mind of Mr. Lucas, but were otherwise unsullied by his influence.
I think Raiders is the perfect movie. Try this: if I mention a few things, do they not bring warm feelings to your heart?*
Tarantulas, sand bag, “throw me the idol, I’ll throw you the whip,” Belloq, “Asps. Very dangerous. You go first,” melting faces, etc. etc.
But then we have Empire, the finest of all Star Wars specimens. We have stuff for the boys (AT-AT’s), we have romance, a really good romance (Han and Leia), we have religion (Yoda), it’s dark as hell (carbonite, the Empire kicking arse), and we have the scene of all scenes: “Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father…” (finish the rest).
So, what’s it to be. It comes down to Indy or Han, really.** Vote.
Loading ...___________
* Yoda says this in Sith. Yoda would never say such a lame thing.
** Oh, Harrison, where are you?
___________
Moviedrome Winners so far:
Spirited Away
Blade Runner
Hero
Citizen Kane
Rushmore
The Sixth Sense
Raiders all the way. No comparison.
Comment by meems — September 9, 2006 @ 3:31 am
Now, meems. I can accept Raiders. But “no comparison”? Wrong. This one is tight.
(Are you in Europe? I know I know this.)
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 3:34 am
Ronan, this one is a toughy, but I had to go Raiders. Maybe it’s got that Spielberg “magic touch” to it (although, as of late, the Spieler has let me down); who knows. It just sits well with me. (Oh, and the reference to the Egyptian pharoah Shishak is always interesting for Bible guys!)
Although, from a political standpoint, the SW hexalogy is one of my favorite film franchises of all time. A small group of rag-tag rebels who defy a coercive government in effort to secure their freedom… man, you can’t beat that!
Comment by David J — September 9, 2006 @ 7:39 am
Hey, Ronan, I’m in Malaysia. Rebecca said I could visit you in Vienna (
) so likewise, if you want a tropical holiday, c’mon down!
Well, at least Empire and Raiders are both movies I own, and I will give them each a rewatch because of Moviedrome. My son will love me for it!
Comment by meems — September 9, 2006 @ 9:34 am
Raiders is a classic. However, I think the Star Wars series, overall, despite its faults in the details, is a more lasting and timeless tale. The overall story arc and vision is grander and more interesting.
Comment by danithew — September 9, 2006 @ 9:57 am
YOU BASTARD!
Comment by Supergenius — September 9, 2006 @ 11:19 am
Raiders. (sob)
Comment by Supergenius — September 9, 2006 @ 11:27 am
Are you people insane? Of course it’s Empire!
Comment by Susan M — September 9, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Will I be banned if I admit to never having seen either?
Comment by Crystal — September 9, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
HOLY CRAP YES YOU WILL, Crystal.
Comment by Supergenius — September 9, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
I admit nothing…
Comment by crystal — September 9, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
LOL Steve.
I stand by my decision.
Raiders of the Lost Ark is an excellent foundation for a series that is sort of like James Bond. I suppose if writers wanted to, they could continue to create Indian Jones adventures that followed a similar pattern in every movie. I watched and enjoyed the third Indiana Jones film … and yet throughout the film I was already predicting that the bad guys were going to have some kind of fate reminiscent of the face-melting that took place at the end of the first movie.
Empire Strikes Back is a unique film and it lies at the heart of the Star Wars story/world/significance. Take out the “Luke, I am your father” interaction and you lose the whole foundation of the six Star Wars movies.
Also, it could be argued that the swashbuckling Han Solo character is a forefather/archetype of Indiana Jones. George Lucas saw the genius of the Han Solo character transfigured into another time and place and that is how he got Indiana Jones. At least that is how I am trying to imagine it.
Is there any interview at all where George Lucas draws any connection between Han Solo and Indiana Jones? I really have no idea.
Comment by danithew — September 9, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
Dan, the question is to pick the best movie. Raiders stands on its own, without any context. Empire doesn’t. Without the SW universe as a general context, Empire just doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t hold up. Why should we care that Darth is Luke’s father, if we don’t know about Ep IV?
Based on solely the movie in front of us, Raiders is the clear pick.
Comment by Supergenius — September 9, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
Raiders. The Star Wars movies, while I enjoyed them well enough as a child, have not stood up very well over time. I saw Raiders again a few months back and it’s still good.
Comment by Brian V — September 10, 2006 @ 6:55 am
Hmm. I guess you’re not going to like what I’m going to say, but… I’ll say it anyway.
Both of these movies are fun. Both of them are… nothing great.
If I had to choose, I guess I would choose Raiders, because it’s the first of the Indiana Jones series and it’s a whole story from beginning to end. Also, it’s directed by one of our great directors.
Empire… is a middle picture, the middle of a story that really needs the first movie to set it up. It has no real beginning, and no real end. It’s directed by a director who is not in Spielberg’s league. And truthfully, because Star Wars tries so hard to have mythic stature, it will never really have it.
I choose Raiders. But really, I choose E.T., or American Grafitti over either of these movies. And I choose The Best Years of Our Lives or The Heiress over any of the former.
Comment by D. Fletcher — September 10, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
How about a real Moviedrome — Ben-Hur vs. Spartacus? Now, THAT’s a contest.
Comment by D. Fletcher — September 10, 2006 @ 5:51 pm
Or, the movie I’m watching tonight in High-Def  Cool Hand Luke.
Comment by D. Fletcher — September 10, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
Indiana. I always wanted to write on my eyelids like the girl in his class. If I was Callista, I would totally do that!
Can do “Best Attractions at Disneyland” next? Or, “Why Disneyland is better than Disneyworld”?
Comment by tracy m — September 11, 2006 @ 12:25 am
Why Disneyland is better than Disneyworld?
Except it’s not!
D, are you a Grumpy Old Man?
Comment by Ronan — September 11, 2006 @ 2:40 am
Disneyland is hot. Disneyworld seems — well, artificial in comparison.
Comment by meems — September 11, 2006 @ 4:06 am
I guess I am, Ronan, compared to everybody else here.
Comment by D. Fletcher — September 11, 2006 @ 4:10 am
If we are judging the films as standalone films, then I would have to agree that Raiders is a complete story whereas Empire Strikes Back is not. From that perspective, I would concede Raiders wins.
If one is looking at the movie as part of a series, then I revert to my formerly stated opinions.
Comment by danithew — September 11, 2006 @ 8:39 am
Raiders, and I don’t really know why I enjoy it more because they are both awsome movies, but I do.
Comment by Taylor T — September 11, 2006 @ 10:29 am
I can’t seem to care much about this one. I like both movies but I don’t have a lot of affection for either one. I suppose my vote will go to Empire because it’s bigger, more iconic, more enduring.
Comment by Tom — September 11, 2006 @ 10:33 am
I love Empire and think it the best of the Star Wars films. But really, Raiders is basically a near perfect film. I still think it the best think Spielberg ever directed. When I finally bought the DVDs after not seeing the film in years I was amazed at just how good it was.
Comment by Clark Goble — September 11, 2006 @ 10:56 am
Danithew, that was my big complaint about the third film (along with a too frivolous tone) It really was basically the first film only with the addition of the father/son story that admittedly was very good. (As was the young Indie stuff) But I find it the weakest of the series by far.
The second film was actually much better than I remembered. It still has tons of problems. But it really was enjoyable.
Comment by Clark Goble — September 11, 2006 @ 10:59 am
I thought the third film was okay … but still predictable as a Hardy Boys book. Yes, the first movie is a perfect original film. But after that, Indiana Jones appears to be in his own rut. There’s no place to go but after more Nazis and more symbolic relics.
Star Wars, in my opinion, still has potential to keep on going and going with new original storylines and divergences. Each one somehow still glorious in all its flawed details.
Comment by danithew — September 11, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
I have to go with Empire, its been my favorite so long its almost habit.
Love Raiders though, the soundtrack is the offical eechupa family roadtrip music. The vehicle always rolls out of the driveway to dah da da da da . . .
Re #12 “Also, it could be argued that the swashbuckling Han Solo character is a forefather/archetype of Indiana Jones. George Lucas saw the genius of the Han Solo character transfigured into another time and place and that is how he got Indiana Jones. At least that is how I am trying to imagine it.”
I agree, but I think Indie is a mix of Han and Luke.
Han becomes Indie
Luke becomes Professor Jones
Han is the adventurer, the one who is always in trouble, no forethought, just making it up as he goes along = Indie
Luke is the scholar, the intellectual, the serious one =Professor Jones
Indie, i think is a much more complex character. it’s like he has a secret identity. He gets the best of both characters in one.
Comment by eechupa — September 13, 2006 @ 12:26 am
Prizes for who knows where “eechupa” comes from.
Comment by Ronan — September 13, 2006 @ 2:00 am
Oh, and a confession:
Indiana Jones is why I do what I do. Sadly, it’s much more boring.
Comment by Ronan — September 13, 2006 @ 2:01 am
You’re an adventurer, Ronan?
Comment by Susan M — September 13, 2006 @ 8:11 am
I signed up to dig up long lost treasure in the Middle East and ended up writing a dissertation on Babylonian slavery.
Comment by Ronan — September 13, 2006 @ 8:33 am
Don’t forget fighting Nazis, Ronan. We all want to fight Nazis.
Comment by HP — September 13, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
eechupa = electrical engineering sucks?
Comment by a random John — September 13, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
Think Empire. Think C3P0.
Comment by Ronan — September 13, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
There could be lost treasure yet Ronan. We only get the exciting part of Indie’s life on film. His dissertation was on the enbalming technics of Egypt during the First Intermediate Period. In fact Indie teaches – he has to read dissertations.
They didn’t find all the treasures from the looted Iraqi museams . . .
No Nazis though
Comment by eechupa — September 13, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
If anyone guesses “eechupa” i’m going to have to change all my passwords. Kidding – doing that now.
Comment by eechupa — September 13, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
Ah, D., as much as I hate to disagree with you, I have to–er–disagree with you. Sure, both of these movies are of a “pop” genre of sorts, but they certainly rise to the top of that genre.
“Raiders” (imo) is the greatest action-adventure ever committed to film. (not “Aliens” as some would like to believe) It is structurally flawless–a great case study for basic three act structure (for those who are still interested in learning such things) It introduces a modern mythical character. (how many movies do that with any kind of real sticking power these days?)It masterfully weaves real-world mythos into a kick-a** heroic comicbook like plot and leaves plenty of room for humor and romance as it moves forward at a perfect rate of developement.
So yeah, sure it’s no “Lawrence of Arabia” on the Art scale, but damn it’s good.
Oh and I should mention that “Empire” is not a wit behind “Raiders” and probably exceeds “Raiders” in how deeply it has sunk into our social conscience.
Comment by Jack — September 13, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
Did anyone else feel like the ending of Raiders was a little bit of a cop-out? Don’t get me wrong, I like watching faces melt as much as the next guy, but I also like my hero to get the bad guys in the end–especially in an action-adventure flick.
Otherwise, a perfect film.
Comment by Tim J. — September 13, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
It was a tough choice at first. However, “Empire” has a greater nostalgia factor for me and, since it was losing anyway, I decided to cast my vote to help prop it up.
Regarding “eechupa”, I always thought it was “eechuta” with a “t”. Supposedly it’s Huttese, and as far as I know there’s no official explanation of its meaning, but C-3PO sure thought it was rude.
Comment by MeM — October 3, 2006 @ 11:45 pm