IMDb > "Ewoks" (1985) > News
"Ewoks"
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratings
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Connect with IMDb


News for
"Ewoks" (1985) More at IMDbPro »


2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008

7 items from 2017


C-3Po Actor Doesn't Even Like Jar Jar Binks

5 September 2017 2:20 PM, PDT | MovieWeb | See recent MovieWeb news »

There are a handful of truly legendary figures in the Star Wars universe, but Anthony Daniels, the man behind C-3Po, is very near the top of the hill. The man has appeared in every single live-action Star Wars movie to date. A streak that is set to continue with Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Another legend, for a different reason, is Ahmed Best, who portrayed Jar Jar Binks in the Star Wars prequels. As it turns out, Daniels feels similar to many fans out there, as he admits that he isn't a fan of the maligned Gungan.

Anthony Daniels recently appeared at Fan Expo 2017 and, as reported by Space, he discussed Jar Jar Binks a bit. While Daniels wanted to make it clear that he has a lot of respect for Ahmed Best as an actor and that he understands that Jar Jar wasn't a character meant to resonate with adults, »

- MovieWeb

Permalink | Report a problem


Why Movies Need Directors Like Phil Lord and Chris Miller More Than Ever

21 June 2017 11:07 AM, PDT | Variety - Film News | See recent Variety - Film News news »

A few days ago, my colleague Owen Gleiberman wrote a scathing essay questioning whether Colin Trevorrow was the right choice to direct “Star Wars: Episode IX,” suggesting that the “Jurassic World” helmer’s in-between indie, “The Book of Henry,” is such an abomination we have reason to think he could ruin the franchise that has already weathered the likes of Gungans and Ewoks.

It was a tough essay, so much so that I genuinely feared Trevorrow’s job could be in danger. And then a funny thing happened. “Star Wars” producer Kathleen Kennedy fired the directors on a completely different “Star Wars” movie, axing Phil Lord and Christopher Miller from the Han Solo project. What!?!?

The universe needs directors like Lord and Miller more than ever these days — and not just the “Star Wars” universe, mind you, but the multiverse of cinematic storytelling in general. Lord and Miller represent that rarest of breeds: directors with a fresh and unique vision, backed by the nerve to stand up for what they believe in.

Related

Star Wars’ Han Solo Spinoff: Lord & Miller Fired After Clashing With Kathleen Kennedy (Exclusive)

Just look at their track record: After starting their careers as TV writers (they created the MTV cartoon series “Clone High” and wrote for “How I Met Your Mother”), the duo made their feature directorial debut with “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” a wildly imaginative reinvention of a 32-page children’s book that heralded them as bold, outside-the-box comedy storytellers.

Then they made the jump to live-action, bringing their trademark brand of hip, pop-savvy self-awareness to the feature-length “21 Jump Street” remake. Few animation directors have survived the leap from animation to live-action (just consider the likes of “John Carter” and “Monster Trucks”), but Lord and Miller took to the new medium like naturals (technically, they had experience from their TV writing days — and I remember hearing stories that they’d actually taken a break from “Cloudy” to write an episode of “How I Met Your Mother” just so they wouldn’t lose their Writers Guild insurance benefits, but that’s another story about animators don’t enjoy the same protection in this industry).

“21 Jump Street” took the concept of a tired old ’80s TV show — two baby-faced cops go undercover as high-school students — and rebooted it with a playful twist, turning the ludicrous setup into one giant joke. Then came “The Lego Movie,” in which they cracked one of the weirdest assignments in 21st-century filmmaking — bring the popular line of kids toys to life — in a wholly original way, embracing the fact that Legos had spawned an almost cult-like sub-genre of fan films (to capitalize on the trend, the Lego company had even released a “MovieMaker Set” in 2000, complete with stop-motion camera and Steven Spielberg-styled minifigure) to make the ultimate wisecracking meta-movie.

After that string of successes, Lord and Miller had become two of the hottest names in town, able to pick their projects. But like so many directors of their generation — children of the ’70s whose love of cinema had been inspired by George Lucas’ game-changing space opera, what they wanted was to make a “Star Wars” movie. For a moment, that seemed possible, since the producers were hiring indie directors like Rian Johnson (“Brick”) and Gareth Edwards (“Monsters”) to helm these tentpoles.

On paper, Lord and Miller’s irreverent sensibility seemed like a perfect match for Han Solo, the franchise’s most sardonic character. One has to assume that it was precisely that take Kathy Kennedy and the “Star Wars” producers wanted when they hired the duo. But this is where modern critics, columnists and the fan community at large fail to understand a fundamental change that is happening at the blockbuster level in Hollywood: These directors are not being chosen to put their personal stamp on these movies. They are being hired to do the opposite, to suppress their identity and act grateful while the producers make all the key creative decisions.

Want to know why Trevorrow was picked to direct “Jurassic World” when his only previous credit was a nifty little sci-fi indie called “Safety Not Guaranteed”? It’s because he plays well with others, willing to follow exec producer Steven Spielberg’s lead when necessary. Going in to the assignment, Trevorrow had no experience directing complicated action sequences or overseeing massive-budget special effects. He didn’t need it, because those aspects of the movie were delegated to seasoned heads of department, while Trevorrow focused on what he does best: handling the interpersonal chemistry between the lead characters. (Personally, I hold Trevorrow responsible for the decision to film Bryce Dallas Howard running in high heels, but not the turducken-like gag where a giant CG monosaur rises up to swallow the pterodactyl that’s eating Bryce’s assistant. Surely someone else oversaw that nearly-all-digital sequence.)

Independent schlock producer Roger Corman memorably observed that in the post-“Jaws,” post-“Star Wars” era, the A movies have become the B movies, and the B movies have become the A movies — which is another way of saying that today, instead of taking risks on smart original movies for grown-up sensibilities (say, tony literary adaptations and films based on acclaimed Broadway plays), the studios are investing most of their resources into comic-book movies and the equivalent of cliffhanger serials (from Tarzan to Indiana Jones).

To Corman’s equation I would add the following corollary: On today’s tentpoles, the director’s job is to take orders, while producers and other pros are called in to oversee the complicated practical and CG sequences that ultimately define these movies. It’s an extension of the old second-unit model, wherein experienced stunt and action-scene professionals handled the logistics of car chases and exotic location work — except that now, such spectacular sequences are the most important part of effects-driven movies. Meanwhile, the one ingredient the producers can’t fake or figure out on their own is the human drama, which is the reason that directors of Sundance films keep getting handed huge Hollywood movies: to deliver the chemistry that will make audiences care about all those big set pieces.

How times have changed: In the 1980s, the only one who would make a movie like “Fantastic Four” was Corman, which he did for peanuts, whereas two years ago, Fox dumped more than $125 million into the same property. And the director they picked? Josh Trank, whose only previous feature had been the low-budget “Chronicle.” Let’s not forget that Trank ankled his own “Star Wars” spinoff, which I suspect had everything to do with realizing what happens when forced to relinquish control of a project in which he’s listed as the in-title-only director.

Back in the ’60s, a group of French critics writing for Cahiers du Cinéma coined what has come to be known as “the auteur theory,” a relatively quaint idea that the director (as opposed the screenwriter, star or some other creative contributor) is the “author” of a film. In the half-century since, critics everywhere have fallen for this fantastical notion that directors have creative autonomy over the movies they make — when in fact, as often as not, that simply isn’t the case.

The auteur theory makes for a convenient myth, of course, and one that lazy critics have long perpetuated, because it’s much to difficult to give credit where it’s due when confronted with the already-cooked soufflé of a finished movie. Critics aren’t allowed into the kitchen, after all, and though countless chefs (or heads of department, to clarify the metaphor) contribute to any given film production, it’s virtually impossible to identify who was really responsible for the choices that make the film what it is.

How much of “Citizen Kane’s” creative genius can be attributed to cinematographer Gregg Toland? Would “Jaws” or “Star Wars” have been even half as effective without composer John Williams? Did editor Ralph Rosenblum save “Annie Hall”? And most relevant to the discussion at hand: Is it correct to think of “Rebecca” as an Alfred Hitchcock movie (he directed it, after all), or does the result more thoroughly reflect the hand of producer David O. Selznick?

This is all complicated by the fact that an entire class of filmmakers — the so-called “film-school generation” — seized upon the auteur theory, turning it into something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as the likes of Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, Lucas and so on left their signature on the movies they made. Meanwhile, the Cahiers critics (several of whom went on to become directors, among them Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut) were protected by a uniquely French copyright law dating back to the 18th century, known as the “droit d’auteur,” which entitled them to final cut (a privilege precious few Hollywood directors have).

But these remain the exception, not the rule. In the case of the “Jurassic Park” and “Star Wars” franchises, the director is decidedly not the auteur. To the extent that a single vision forms the creative identity of these films, it’s almost always the producer we should hold responsible. To understand that, we need only look back to the original “Star Wars” sequel, “The Empire Strikes Back,” a movie “directed” by Irvin Kershner, but every bit George Lucas’ brainchild (he reportedly hand-picked Kershner for his strength with character development). The same goes for Richard Marquand on “Return of the Jedi.”

This shouldn’t be a scandalous revelation. It just doesn’t fit with the self-aggrandizing narrative that many directors have chosen for themselves. Yes, the 1989 “Batman” is without question “a Tim Burton movie”: Burton has such an incredibly distinctive aesthetic, and the personality to push it through a system that’s virtually designed to thwart such originality. But when it comes to the incredibly successful “X-Men” franchise, there’s no question that producer (and “Superman” director) Richard Donner deserves as much credit as those first two films’ director, Bryan Singer. Simply put, that franchise owes its personality to both of their involvement.

But when it comes to “Jurassic World,” that movie probably wouldn’t look much different in the hands of someone other than Trevorrow. And the same can almost certainly be said for the “Star Wars” movie he’s been hired to direct, because in both cases, it’s the producers who are steering the ship. When the stakes are this high, it would be downright reckless to give complete autonomy to relatively unproven directors.

That’s increasingly the case in Hollywood these days. Director Dave Green (who’d made a tiny Amblin-style movie called “Earth to Echo”) went through it on a franchise project produced by Michael Bay. He was tapped to helm “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows,” only to discover that he had no autonomy. Granted, Green was still wet behind the ears and had no experience with a nine-digit budget or big union crew. But that wasn’t the job, because Bay never expected him to handle everything. Instead, the producer pulled in more experienced professionals to oversee much of the action and visual effects, while Green followed orders and worked his magic with the actors.

You can bet Tom Cruise’s paycheck that the same thing happened on “The Mummy,” in which Alex Kurtzman is listed as director, but the producer-star was reportedly calling most of the shots. How appropriate that a Universal monster movie reboot should be the victim of what amounts to a kind of creative Frankenstein effect.

Likewise, Marvel has had more success (both financially and artistically) forcing directors to conform to an inflexible set of aesthetic guidelines than it did when art-house “auteur” Ang Lee experimented with his own ideas on 2003’s “Hulk.” And though Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón is celebrated for the personal touch he brought to the Harry Potter franchise, it was relatively malleable British TV director David Yates whom writer-producer J.K. Rowling approved to direct four more films in the series.

So where does that leave us with “Star Wars”? On one hand, it’s perfectly understandable that the producers would want Trevorrow to direct Episode IX, since he’s already demonstrated his capacity to play along with the producers. Meanwhile, it’s disheartening — but not altogether surprising — that a directorial duo as gifted as Lord and Miller have been fired from the Han Solo film, since they’ve been known to fight for the creative integrity of their vision.

But it’s a loss to the “Star Wars” world, since Lord and Miller’s previous credits demonstrate the kind of unique take they might have brought to the franchise. Warner Bros. trusted the duo enough on “The Lego Movie” to let them poke fun at Batman — arguably the studio’s most precious IP, previously rendered oh-so-serious in the Christopher Nolan trilogy. Lord and Miller’s minifigure Dark Knight was a brooding egomaniac and the funniest thing about that film, so much so that Warners ran with it, producing a spinoff that stretched the joke to feature length.

Sony Pictures Animation (where Lord and Miller made “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs”) was similarly enthusiastic about their input on Spider-Man, greenlighting the pair’s high-attitude idea for an animated movie centered around Miles Morales, the Black Hispanic superhero who took over web-slinging duties after Peter Parker’s death. Though they’re not directing, the script is said to bear their fingerprints — which it seems is exactly what Kennedy and company don’t want on the Han Solo project.

With any luck, Lord and Miller will see the “Star Wars” setback as the opportunity that it is: Rather than being forced to color within the lines of a controlling producer’s vision, they can potentially explore the more individual (dare I say, “auteurist”?) instinct they so clearly possess on a less-protected property. Heck, maybe Sony’s Spider-Man project will be the one to benefit. Or perhaps they’ll be in the enviable position of pitching an original movie. Not all directors have such a strong or clear sense of vision that they can be trusted to exert it over a massive studio tentpole, but Lord and Miller are among the few actively reshaping the comedy landscape. Now is their moment, although as Han Solo would say, “Great, kid. Don’t get cocky.”

Related stories'Star Wars' Han Solo Spinoff: Lord & Miller Firing Is Latest in Long Line of Director Exits'Star Wars' Han Solo Spinoff: Lord & Miller Fired After Clashing With Kathleen Kennedy (Exclusive)'Star Wars' Han Solo Film Loses Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller »

- Peter Debruge

Permalink | Report a problem


Bringing Star Wars to the Screen: Episode IV – A New Hope

25 May 2017 3:30 AM, PDT | Flickeringmyth | See recent Flickeringmyth news »

Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, 1977.

Directed by George Lucas.

Starring Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness.

Synopsis:

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away… young farm boy Luke Skywalker becomes embroiled in a civil war between the heroic Rebellion and evil Galactic Empire. Setting off from his home-world, Luke must rescue a captured princess and learn the ways of the Force from Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi if he is to aid the Rebellion in destroying the Empire’s ultimate weapon, the Death Star.

During the production of his debut movie Thx-1138 (1971), young director George Lucas had expressed considerable interested in adapting the adventures of Flash Gordon for the big screen but, after being unable to acquire the rights to the character, Lucas soon set about developing his own space adventure reminiscent of the science-fiction movie serials he had watched as a child. »

- admin

Permalink | Report a problem


There Are No Plans For More Alterations To Be Made To The Original Star Wars Trilogy

24 April 2017 3:55 PM, PDT | We Got This Covered | See recent We Got This Covered news »

George Lucas’ constant tinkering with the original Star Wars trilogy has become a real pet peeve for longtime fans of the franchise. Whether it’s blinking Ewoks, additional CGI or Darth Vader screaming “Noooo!” as he takes down the Emperor, Lucas has left everyone with a lot to debate over the years.

Since he sold Lucasfilm and moved away from Star Wars, it’s become clear that the writer/director would no longer have any sort of role in what happens to A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, but if you were expecting the new regime to make their own alterations, you’d best think again.

Talking at Star Wars Celebration a couple of weeks ago, Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy had this to say about leaving the trilogy alone.

“I wouldn’t touch those, are you kidding me? [laughs] Those will always remain his.”

Honestly, »

- Josh Wilding

Permalink | Report a problem


George Lucas and Ewoks Frolic In a field in Weird Old Japanese Commercials

31 March 2017 5:00 PM, PDT | TVovermind.com | See recent TVovermind.com news »

I’ve mentioned many times how no one can hold a candle to Japan when it comes to super duper weird commercials.  Turns out that goes way way back to the 80s.   When the Star Wars trilogy ended I don’t think anyone ever assumed it would grow into what it did today.  Granted it was a very successful trilogy but now it’s more like an entire world movement than a movie franchise.  So when George Lucas was done with all the movies, he must have realized that any chance he could to take advantage of the success would be a wise

George Lucas and Ewoks Frolic In a field in Weird Old Japanese Commercials »

- Nat Berman

Permalink | Report a problem


Rogue One Director Tried to Hide a Secret from George Lucas

14 March 2017 1:48 PM, PDT | MovieWeb | See recent MovieWeb news »

With Disney and LucasFilm's highly-successful Star Wars spin-off Rogue One: A Star Wars Story coming home on Digital HD March 24, and on Blu-ray and DVD April 4, fans have been waiting with bated breath to enjoy this sci-fi adventure from the comfort of their home, while enjoying all of the supplemental material. Director Gareth Edwards decided to promote this home video release by hosting a Reddit Ama, where he shared a surprising secret that he kept from Star Wars creator George Lucas, when Lucas visited the set. Here's what Gareth Edwards had to say.

"He came to visit Pinewood before we started filming.... to take the pressure off us, I had posters in my room of the previous 'Star Wars spinoffs,' Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure and the Star Wars Holiday Special... my main goal when he came in was to try and stop him seeing these... my »

- MovieWeb

Permalink | Report a problem


Reader Submission: "What Star Wars Learned From The McU (That Marvel Forgot)"

2 January 2017 9:08 AM, PST | LRMonline.com | See recent LRM Online news »

(Photo Courtesy of The Culture Concept)

Two weeks ago, I published a column titled "Lucasfilm Has Turned The Star Wars Galaxy Into The Marvel Universe." In that piece, I touched on a few key ways in which The House That Lucas Built was borrowing heavily from Marvel's model for the McU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Today one of our readers, UnBoxing Jon, is back with another Reader Submission where he takes that idea another step farther.

Call To Action: Don't let Jonny boy hog all the glory! Here at Lrm, we're now reserving a slot on Mondays dedicated exclusively to Reader Submissions. If you've got a piece you'd love to share with the world, e-mail it to Mario@LRMOnline.com. I'll work on it with you, and if we can get it into shape, it'll be published right here on Lrm. Like the tagline says: "For Fanboys, By Fanboys!"

Bring'em on! »

- Mario-Francisco Robles

Permalink | Report a problem


2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008

7 items from 2017


IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles, Tweets, or blog posts. This content is published for the entertainment of our users only. The news articles, Tweets, and blog posts do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the source responsible for the item in question to report any concerns you may have regarding content or accuracy.

See our NewsDesk partners