Every disaster movie has both ridiculous sub-plots and characters that serve only to detract from the main story of watching stuff blow up.
Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea Michael Ansara as a mystic who tries to get the crew to mutiny and Joan Fontaine as a doctor-spy who gets eaten by a shark. Who cares, let’s have another fight with the giant squid.
Airport Helen Hayes as an adorable stowaway, Jacqueline Bisset as the stewardness knocked up by chief pilot Dean Martin, Dana Wynter as Burt Lancaster’s annoying wife and Jean Seberg as his nearly as annoying girlfriend. Excuse me people, but does anyone care there’s a suicidal bomber on board?
Earthquake Does anyone really care about Charlton Heston’s estrangement from Ava Gardner when it takes screen time away from the vitally important subplot of Victoria Principal in a tight t-shirt?
Poseidon Adventure Kid brother - annoying. Shelley Winters - annoying. Ship’s waiter - killed off before he could become annoying. Gene Hackman’s crisis of faith - annoying, but only one scene.
Oh, absolutely. That’s the whole formula of that genre. The plot is always utterly inane - just an excuse for disaster footage. And don’t forget Independence Day. I mean, what exactly was the reason for Wil Smith’s wife being a stripper and meeting the president’s wife? That whole sub-plot didn’t work at all; it was just dead filler.
Fabienne in Pulp Fiction actually made me physically ill when she talked about getting a piece of blueberry pie with a “thin slice of melted cheese” on top. Am I nuts, or is this just not a proper combination of foods at all?
Here’s a new one. I hope Lucas isn’t actually retroengineering this myth.
Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back were easily in the top 5 highest grossing movies of all time - if not numbers 1 and 2 - when Jedi was being produced. How could costumes a few sizes larger be deemed “too expensive”?
They made the change from Wookie to Ewok because they thought their target audience - kids - would relate to them better. Probably a good idea at the time, but those kids are in their 30s now and realize what a stupid move it was.
E.T. had sneaked ahead of both movies while Jedi was in post-production. Star Wars regained the top spot in 1997 after the “special edition” release, only to lose (for good, I expect, barring future alternate editions)to Titanic.
I also find the “expense” argument dubious. While Spielberg managed to get past the manipulative crap of E.T. with heavy-duty movies like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List, Lucas looks trapped in late adolescence.
The real reason for Ewoks over Wookiees is that after using Chewie in the first movie, Wookiees were obviously somewhat advanced technologically. The purpose of the final battle is to show the human (Ewok?) spirit triumphing over the faceless technology of the Empire (cf. THX-1138), so Wookiees weren’t as suitable.
In other words, the problem was thematic. Lucas has gone on record as saying that they “dared to be cute” with the Ewoks, though IMHO this was not in order to sell toys but simply part of the man’s whimsical nature.
Having seen Rookie of the Year recently, I must mention Daniel Stern as Phil. His character doesn’t bring anything worthwhile to the movie and spends the big game trapped in the locker room.
Didn’t sound that awful to me.