‘Star Wars’ and More

The article “Saber Rattler” (by Jack Mathews, Jan. 17) contains the following misstatement: “Fox famously traded away the merchandising and sequel rights for ‘Star Wars’ to [George] Lucas for lower writing and directing fees. . . .”

The facts are that, as detailed in the original production-distribution agreement between 20th Century Fox and Lucas, Fox administered the merchandising rights to “Star Wars.” Lucas did have the right to approve all licensing deals. When the sequel rights were renegotiated, Fox relinquished the licensing rights to Lucas in 1979, not in 1977.

As vice president of Fox Licensing, I was responsible for the licensing campaign for the initial theatrical release of “Star Wars,” in coordination with Charles Lippincott of Lucasfilm. Both Dennis C. Stanfill, Fox CEO, and Alan Ladd Jr., Fox’s president of theatrical production, strongly supported my efforts well before the release of “Star Wars.” Lippincott and I made joint presentations to the toy industry in New York during February 1977. Foolishly, few toy companies expressed any interest and many did not even bother to attend our presentations.

However, as a result of these presentations, we concluded what ultimately became a precedent-shattering master toy license with Kenner Products Co. I negotiated this license, which remained in effect throughout the first two “Star Wars” sequels.

MARC PEVERS

Palm Desert

*

I take exception to those who blame George Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the dismal state of the “Hollywood film.” The films directed by these two, from the lighthearted entertainment of “American Graffiti,” “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” to the more serious “The Color Purple,” “Schindler’s List” and “Saving Private Ryan,” exhibit a quality and creativity all too seldom found in Hollywood’s current product.

And I believe that reader Steve Barr put on his rose-colored glasses when remembering films of the ‘60s and ‘70s (Letters, Jan. 24). His list includes some truly great films, but also some extremely forgettable mediocrities such as “Shampoo,” “Serpico” and--dare I say it--”Midnight Cowboy” (saved only by Dustin Hoffman’s wonderful acting). And by the way, did Barr forget who directed “Close Encounters”?

So where should we place the blame? Certainly with a “film industry” that values hacks like Jim Cameron and John Woo over true geniuses like Welles and Coppola. But more so with the dumbed-down audiences that cough up $7 for anything they see advertised on TV.

If you’ve been spending your money on trash like “Godzilla,” “Independence Day” and “Armageddon” while missing such gems as “The Usual Suspects,” “Amistad” and “The Opposite of Sex,” well, perhaps you’re part of the problem.

ART ALENIK

Laguna Beach

*

Steve Barr provides George Lucas with a formidable list of movies from the late ‘60s and ‘70s that are worth watching. But he neglects to mention “Blow-Up,” “Faster Pussycat . . . Kill, Kill,” “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?,” “Bonnie and Clyde,” “Cool Hand Luke,” “Belle de Jour,” “The Graduate,” “The Lion in Winter,” “Planet of the Apes,” “The Swimmer,” “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie,” “The Only Game in Town,” “Panic in Needle Park,” “Performance,” “The Boys in the Band,” “The Ruling Class,” “Deliverance,” “The Last Detail,” “Lady Ice,” “Don’t Look Now,” “Last tango in Paris,” “A Woman Under the Influence,” “Interiors” and “The Tin Drum.”

All are terrific. Lucas must have been talking about the ‘80s and ‘90s.

ARNO KEKS

El Monte