Preamble

I have this theory about episodic television series: The third episode is always the weakest of the first season, of maybe the entire run. It's probably due to a combination of factors -- a creative letdown that occurs after getting a series to air, the fact that the toughest two episodes to write of a series are the pilot and its chaser, and a simple desire to get on with the stories and character arcs you really want to tell. The third episode somehow becomes the locus of obvious plotting, wooden dialogue, dreadful supporting characters. Check out, the X-Files, third episode, it just plain sucks. But they went on to tell some really great stories later in the season. NYPD Blue, can anyone tell me about it's third episode? No? I'll bet it contained some adult language and nudity, but the story lacked. Hey, with adult language and nudity, who cares? The point is that this is the third column of what I hope are many, but I'm man enough to recognize that it might suffer from this syndrome. I hope I'm wrong, but in case I'm not, read with a grain of salt...

Column #3 - George Lucas should get out and produce small, independent character-driven films

Well, he should, how's that for a tight, coherent argument. It's really this simple...no? Okay, how 'bout this -- George Lucas has squandered one of the truly glorious opportunities to nurture young filmmaking talent. Sure, you could argue that he's had the greatest impact upon filmmaking since the invention of celluloid, since Stephen Speilberg picked up a camera, since Indiana Jones first-put-boot-to-nazi-ass. You could also make the suggestion, sage as you are to see both sides of the argument, that Lucas was no more a visionary than Bill Gates. He road on the coattails of technicians, talented for certain, some may've even be gifted, but technicians they all were, masters of computer code, which is kinda like being really talented with a yo-yo. Hey, Tommy Smothers is still the man...Who's Tommy Smothers? He's a really talented yo-yo guy and someone most of you have never heard, which was exactly my point.

Frank Marshall, producer of many fine movies, including the Indiana Jones series, Arachnophobia, and Seabiscuit, addresses this very point concerning Indiana Jones IV: "One of the things I enjoy about these movies is that they do recall the old cliffhanger serials of the '30s and '40s. We didn't have computer effects in those days. We couldn't easily erase things, and I think one of the unfortunate by-products of the computer age is that it makes filmmakers lazy. You become more creative when you have to hide ramps with a tree rather than erase it later as you can today." All I can say is, I love it when a plan comes together. That's a little A-team observational humor.

Lucas made American Graffiti PSW -- that's pre-Stars Wars for you non-geeks out there, yes there was something before Star Wars but I'll be darned if I can remember what it was -- an entertaining character-piece-slash-coming-of-age-story-about-the-last-night-of-our-lives - together-for-high-school-friends-for-tomorrow-we-go-off-to-college-war-life-insert-your-metaphor-here. I'm playing fast and loose with what is actually a decent flick. Hey, any movie that features both Indiana Jones and Crissy from Three's Company is alright in my book. Now, Lucas was also the creative genus behind Howard the Duck, a simple tale involving rock and roll, the chick from the Back to the Future movies, and a giant duck. Suffice to say, it had some problems.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "It's easy to sit there and throw slings and arrows at George Lucas, why he's big and powerful and important and I'm no one". Now that's a matter of perspective. William Goldman, the greatest living screenwriter, has a theory that deserves some play. He asserts that certain Hollywood filmmakers who shall not be named here (in the hope that I'll someday get to work for them) who make untold sequels are really just money-whores. That's right, you read it here, how boorish, how prurient, how...true. Did the world really need Men In Black II? I know I sure didn't, though Will Smith displayed some genuine range in that movie. Really...go back and look at it ag -- on second thought, go crack a book. Maybe something by Bill Goldman. It just came to me that right at this moment, my pushing of the Goldman writing style, which I admire the heck outta, his ability to both tell a story and generate tension simultaneously borders on the ridiculous, and my easy acceptance of his ideas probably makes me a whore, too...Well, so be it. There are worse things in life than admitting to selling yourself at the altar of a great writer. You could be the poor bastard who wrote Men In Black II. Did I say bastard singular, I meant the half-dozen writing teams that undoubtedly were brought in to simultaneously undo and re-write the writing team before them. Thinking more clearly about it, they probably made a mint from those assignments...Hey, I could'a wrote that...Please...Anybody hear me?...(lonely SIGH goes here).

I, for one, am curious about the young filmmakers that Lucas might've nurtured, long desperate individuals too much in love with . So this column isn't so much an indictment as a call to arms: Go out and make some piddling little character-piece and realize someone's dream. Hey, make mine! Or someone else who really deserves a shot. Some story where the only special effects is the tears in an actress' eyes, where the only limits are the imagination of the director. Now, that might be something really special...

I have but one last question for Lucas: Aren't you curious, George?
Jess Nakaska is an aspiring screenwriter always on the lookout for the next great script idea. He'll let you know if he finds it. Feel free to contact him at jessnakaska@hotmail.com.