I don't understand George Lucas at all...

Posted by ROB T. from 162.10.138.28 on September 20, 1999 at 01:51:58:

This occurred to me as I was reading through the posts about whether or not we like Short Round and also because I saw "Phantom Menace" at the dollar theatre this weekend and I wanted to throw it out there and see if anyone has any insights on this.
George Lucas seems to want to point "Star Wars" in a more kid-friendly direction by putting in Jar Jar and lots of childish humor. In "Temple of Doom" he put in Short Round to appeal to the kids. I have no idea if he intends to kiddie up Indy IV or not but I hope he doesn't.
I don't have a problem with aiming these films towards kids but if you look closely I don't understand his methods. While we're at it I guess Spielberg has to take some of the blame for this trend also since a lot of his films are the same way.
Both filmmakers seem to put children in their films to appeal to the kids in the audience. On the surface this looks like a good idea. My problem with this is the situations that these kids are put into.
We have Indy dragging a child into a dangerous situation and putting that child's life in grave danger.
We have two Jedi knights putting a child into a death defying race in order to solve their troubles.
We have a host of adults dragging children onto an island full of dinosaurs and putting them in danger in the "Jurassic Park" films.
Notice a trend here?
On one hand, putting children into these adventure flicks does broaden the films' appeal for children but on the other it casts the adult characters in a bad light.
Indy looks reckless and irresponsible in "Temple of Doom."
Qui Gonn looks foolish and immature in "Phantom Menace."
In real life no adult depends on a child to solve his problems and no adult puts a child's life in danger on purpose.

I'd be interested in hearing what you all think about this. Please don't dismiss it with 'it's just a movie.' We nitpick every little detail of these films when it comes to unimportant things like Indy's clothes so I think we can treat this as a serious subject.

Follow Ups:

Re: I don't understand George Lucas at all... J 12:39:50 9/20/99 (1)
- First sentence should say... J 12:42:54 9/20/99 (0)
Re: Its just a movie... Dietrick 11:46:39 9/20/99 (0)
Re: I don't understand George Lucas at all... Short Round 06:46:49 9/20/99 (0)
Re: I don't understand George Lucas at all... Sean 05:14:07 9/20/99 (4)
- AGREED!! The kids from ET did a terrific job! Brett (Maverick) Lambert 12:36:05 9/20/99 (3)
  - Re: AGREED!! The kids from ET did a terrific job! Goodsport 18:30:28 9/20/99 (2)
    - Yeah, but not all the time, ever see "Hook"? The kids were artificial in that one (nm) Brett (Maverick) Lambert 07:11:20 9/21/99 (1)
      - You mean the kids in Never-Never Land? Of course they were... it was Never-Never Land! :) (nm) Goodsport 18:40:21 9/21/99 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: This occurred to me as I was reading through the posts about whether or not we like Short Round and also because I saw "Phantom Menace" at the dollar theatre this weekend and I wanted to throw it out there and see if anyone has any insights on this.
: George Lucas seems to want to point "Star Wars" in a more kid-friendly direction by putting in Jar Jar and lots of childish humor. In "Temple of Doom" he put in Short Round to appeal to the kids. I have no idea if he intends to kiddie up Indy IV or not but I hope he doesn't. 
: I don't have a problem with aiming these films towards kids but if you look closely I don't understand his methods. While we're at it I guess Spielberg has to take some of the blame for this trend also since a lot of his films are the same way.
: Both filmmakers seem to put children in their films to appeal to the kids in the audience. On the surface this looks like a good idea. My problem with this is the situations that these kids are put into.
: We have Indy dragging a child into a dangerous situation and putting that child's life in grave danger. 
: We have two Jedi knights putting a child into a death defying race in order to solve their troubles.
: We have a host of adults dragging children onto an island full of dinosaurs and putting them in danger in the "Jurassic Park" films.
: Notice a trend here?
: On one hand, putting children into these adventure flicks does broaden the films' appeal for children but on the other it casts the adult characters in a bad light.
: Indy looks reckless and irresponsible in "Temple of Doom."
: Qui Gonn looks foolish and immature in "Phantom Menace."
: In real life no adult depends on a child to solve his problems and no adult puts a child's life in danger on purpose.

: I'd be interested in hearing what you all think about this. Please don't dismiss it with 'it's just a movie.' We nitpick every little detail of these films when it comes to unimportant things like Indy's clothes so I think we can treat this as a serious subject.

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

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