"I like being thought of as a toymaker who makes films." In the summer of 1971, George Lucas talked with critic / journalist / scholar Gene Youngblood for a program entitled "George Lucas: Maker of Films," which aired on public television station KCET in Los Angeles. Michael Heilemann of Binary Bonsai has made it available for online viewing, and it's a fascinating watch.

The interview takes place a few months after THX 1138, his first feature, opened and died a quick death at the box office. It would be two more years before American Graffiti ignited the box office and six years before Star Wars changed everything. Young Lucas was already mighty unhappy with the Hollywood studio system. Binary Bonsai provides context for his late 60s ventures, and then in the interview, Lucas says he started the feature-length version of his short THX 1138:4EB in the wake of the freedom created by the success of Easy Rider, but by the time he finished, the studio wanted something closer to the commercial fare of Airport and Love Story.

The program includes snippets from 6.18.67, a behind-the-scenes short doc that Lucas shot while on location for McKenna's Gold in 1967, and Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB, as retitled by USC at the time. Despite Lucas' repeated assertions that he wants to make personal films -- something that his old running buddy Francis Ford Coppola is finally doing -- it seems that he will always be thought of as "a toymaker who makes films." And here he is, in a rare glimpse at the early years of his career.

After the jump: Watch the video!

Mere days after Shia LaBeouf gleefully announced that Steven Spielberg had "cracked" the story for Indiana Jones 5 comes another confirmation that it'll rear its ugly head. Empire Online caught up with Indiana Jones' longtime producer, Frank Marshall, who didn't go so far as to green-light it, but revealed that they'll start hashing out ideas before too long.

"It's really about the script," said Marshall. "Once we see that, we'll see. We're not going to wait another 20 years. We'd all love to make another one. I'm anxious to hear the idea!" But he quickly added that he really didn't know what Spielberg was cooking. "Until there's a script, nothing's definite. I haven't heard the idea." (He should ask LaBeouf. I bet he knows.) Marshall also confirmed that Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford were equally eager to return for a fifth outing. "Yeah. We had a great time making the last one and, as Harrison said, we need to make this one soon. We're not getting any younger."

While talk is talk, and plans vanish, bear in mind that they were already chattering about a fifth outing before Kingdom of the Crystal Skull hit theaters, and were still dreaming of it after, despite the negative reviews and fan backlash. I have no doubt it'll happen regardless of what the fans say or think. When it does, that shrieking sound you hear? That'll be the death cry of my fangirl soul ... and I'm sure it won't be the only lament visited upon the heavens.

Ah, the sequel no one is clamoring for has reared its head again. To be fair, some people enjoyed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and with worldwide gross receipts totaling nearly $800 million, the only question that remained was when Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Harrison Ford would be ready to give it another go. (Our own poll last year suggested that it was time to retire the franchise.) Reportedly, Lucas favored the idea of continuing with old Indiana Jones as the lead character rather than handing things over to young Mutt Williams, played by Shia LaBeouf. Research was being conducted to find an artifact that the movie could be based on.

In the UK to promote Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, LaBeouf talked to the BBC and revealed that he had spoken recently with Spielberg about another Indiana Jones movie: "Steven just said he cracked a story on it before I left. I think they're gearing that up." Spielberg is busy filming The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn, so maybe he talked with Lucas between shots: "Hi, George, it's Steven. What if Indy searches for a shabti?" "Steven, what's a shabti?" "You know, George, the Sorcerer's Apprentice, the inspiration for that segment with Mickey Mouse in Fantasia?" "Of course, Steven, who do you think you're talking to?" "Well, George, the shabti was a figurine that was buried with the dead and performed hard labor for the deceased in the afterlife." "Ooh, I know, Mutt could try to get to it first, so he would never have to do manual labor for Indy any more!" "George, I think we've cracked it."

We'll wait to see if an official confirmation seeps out. Are you holding your breath for Indy 5?

I think we can all agree that Han Solo will probably go down as one of the most beloved characters in film history. Granted, he was just an update on an old theme, but we all love a swaggering bad-boy with a heart of gold, don't we? Han has inspired plenty of fan art over the years...not to mention the occasional piece of office furniture, and you would think that fans would have run out of ideas by now, right? Well, not quite, so may I introduce: Han Solo P.I.

Devoted Star Wars fan TheCBVee has created a great little mash-up of scenes of Han Solo repacked as the opening credits for Magnum P.I., and as someone who grew up with the mustachioed private eye, this thing is spot-on (TheCBVee also provided a handy little side-by-side comparison of the original opening and his creation). You've got Alec Guinness filling in for Higgins, Chewie picks up where TC left off, and Luke as Rick, the suave playboy. OK, Luke as the suave type might be a bit of a stretch, but you had to work him in somewhere, right?

Yesterday was the 32nd anniversary of the original theatrical release of Star Wars, which I had completely forgotten about until Cinematical Editor-in-Chief Erik Davis pointed me to this book. Star Wars: The Essential Atlas by Daniel Wallace and Jason Fry is a "fully illustrated, full-color guide that maps the entire galaxy." It promises to encompass "the entire Star Wars canon, including all the films, and the Clone Wars television series, plus the novels, comic books, video games, and more." The book "is packed with dozens of detailed maps and charts."

My interest in Star Wars ebbs and flows with the years. I was absolutely fanatical / obsessed with the first two movies, but the Ewoks irritated me long before Jar Jar Binks. I very much enjoyed the Thrawn Trilogy novels by Timothy Zahn but could not possibly keep up with all the books that followed. I loved seeing the originals on the big screen again in the 90s but was sorely disappointed that George Lucas felt compelled to tamper with them. Episode I was a real let down, Episode II fell entirely flat, yet portions of Episode III nearly redeemed the whole thing for me. (Go figure.) As a movie, Star Wars: The Clone Wars was fatally boring.

Despite all my mixed feelings, the idea of putting the entire Star Wars galaxy down on paper, complete with detailed maps and charts, appeals to the analytical part of my brain. The book is due out on August 18.

With that headline, you're free to make any number of assumptions as what, exactly, filmmaker George Lucas was wrong about. Was he wrong to make the Ewoks cute and furry? Was he wrong to tweak the sacred Original Trilogy into pristine beauty? Was he wrong about Jar Jar Binks? Was he wrong about Indiana Jones? I could go on and on, but Vanity Fair writer Julian Sancton narrows it down to one thing, claiming that Lucas was wrong about ... (drum roll, please) ... the future of movies.

VF points to the "startling predictions" he made two and a half years ago "that the age of the blockbuster was over; that 'the secret to the future' was a large quantity of small, web-distributed movies; and that the habit of moviegoing would be a thing of the past." (See Cinematical's story from three years ago with similar Lucas predictions.) VF says that the crazy opening of Fast & Furious proves that "people are still thirsting for relatively cheap entertainment, and that big-budget, mindless, good-bad movies are a welcome distraction from the general glumness."

VF offers their own prophecies: fewer "middle-range" movies (budgeted between $25 - $100 million); more people investing in movies; plummeting DVD sales; and more frequent record-setting opening weekends. Frankly, those sound boring compared to Lucas' predictions, so let's go back to his ideas.

Was George Lucas wrong? Do you even care how much movies cost to produce? Or are you more concerned about the price of a ticket? For those of you who are regular (every week or two) moviegoers: Will you go see any big, dumb movie just to distract you from other problems? For less frequent moviegoers: Are you staying home because it's more convenient, or because the quality of movies has gone down?

The last we heard about Red Tails, the new George Lucas project, dear, classy George was saying that while he wasn't directing the feature, "a black director" was. (The name Lucas failed to mention: Anthony Hemingway.) And now we've got a cast. The Hollywood Reporter posts that Cuba Gooding Jr. and Terrence Howard will head the ensemble cast that includes a whole slew of names.

Get ready ... the rest of the cast will be filled out by: Bryan Cranston, Nate Parker, David Oyelowo, Tristan Wilds, Cliff Smith (aka Method Man), Kevin Phillips, Rick Otto, Lee Tergesen, Andre Royo, Ne-Yo, Elijah Kelley, Marcus T. Paulk, Leslie Odom Jr., Michael B. Jordan, Jazmine Sullivan, Edwina Findley, Daniela Ruah, and Stacie Davis.

The Lucas-created story, sent off to John Ridley to write, was inspired by Tuskegee Airmen (the first all-black aerial combat unit in WWII). There's no further word on the plot, but Lucas has talked about the effects, which are pretty much a requisite for Lucas: "We're working on techniques that will give us the first true look at the aerial dogfighting of the era, and our top-notch cast will really make this story special."

It's free of the Lucas-helming fear, while having a dedication to great, authentic effects, it's a Gooding Jr. project that isn't about animals and isn't something immediately cringe-worthy, and it's work for the Iron Man 2-shunned Howard. I'm in. You?

Apparently, the Dark Side of the Force doesn't help evade the details of fine print. The London Times overheard David Prowse (a.k.a. "The Man Inside Darth Vader") reveal a rather shocking fact to Equity magazine -- he's never received any residuals from The Return of the Jedi because the film never made a profit.

Says Prowse: "In the last 30 years you can count the number of times [The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi] have been in the cinema on one hand, and it never returned much money. I get these occasional letters from Lucasfilm saying that we regret to inform you that as Return of the Jedi has never gone into profit, we've got nothing to send you. Now here we're talking about one of the biggest releases of all time."

His friends say that the letter informing him that ROTJ hadn't made a profit actually referred to the Special Edition re-release and DVD, and that the terms of his contract reward him profits only when the film exceeds its production costs ... which the ROTJ Special Edition may never have done. LucasFilm won't comment, except to say that Prowse is mistaken: "Lucasfilm, as a matter of policy, does not discuss its financial arrangements with cast or crew on its movies, and we will respect that policy here other than to say that Mr Prowse's statement is not accurate."

Call me crazy, but I think even the Special Edition has turned a pretty tidy profit by now. Even if it hasn't, if there's one thing the Star Wars films have been, it's insanely lucrative -- and you would think the studio could toss its players (especially a fan favorite like Prowse) a chunk of change just to say "Thanks for the memories."

[Thanks to Kris Aaron and burnieburns for Tweeting this where I would see it.]

Finding out how your favorite movies came to be is generally very rewarding and educational. You seek out The Seven Samurai, and thank the film gods that a robotic shark failed to work. At the very least, you can win trivia contests by knowing what Rosebud was, and impress your friends by telling them who was originally cast as Aragorn.

And then there's the stuff you wish you had never known. This week, you may have been one of the Indy fans who eagerly downloaded the Raiders of the Lost Ark transcript, where George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Lawrence Kasdan hashed out ideas for one of the greatest film characters of all time. Cool stuff. Useful if you aim to write books or movies someday. Then I read this bit about Marion and Indy, and their ideas for their early love affair gone wrong:

GL: I was thinking that this old guy could have been his mentor. He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

LK: And he was forty-two.

GL: He hasn't seen her in twelve years. Now she's twenty-two. It's a real strange relationship.

SS: She had better be older than twenty-two.

It's a slow news day, so what better to read than a bit of neuroscience? Over at Very Evolved, Patrick the Researcher decided to explain the science behind nostalgia, otherwise known as "that warm and fuzzy feeling that is keeping Hollywood in summer blockbusters."

Studies indicate that nostalgia is a kind of anti-depressant -- which probably isn't news to anyone who has found comfort in chocolate chip cookies or Flight of the Navigator.

But Patrick cautions that nostalgic memories can be "recoded" and what we once loved and cherished becomes associated with negativity. This, he reasons, is why Star Wars fans dislike George Lucas. "A great example of this in action that also demonstrates fluid nostalgia is the backlash against George Lucas. A large portion of 70's and 80's children had grown up owning Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader figures and playing in the backyard pretending sticks were light sabers. Fond childhood memories. When the first abysmal Star Wars Prequel was released the strong feelings against the film weren't just those of disappointment at a bad movie. If it were that simple, we should also feel the same way about Police Academy 7. The reaction can be partly explained by the sense of attack on our previously fond feelings. Watching the new movie automatically calls up memories from the previous series and all the pleasant childhood playtime memories associated with it. But recalling these fond memories in the context of a negative experience begins the process of re-coding, or modifying our old memories. This is an undesirable outcome for nostalgia."

But hey -- anyone who has ever screamed "George Lucas raped my childhood" could tell you that. Now they have science and psychology to back them up!

[via io9]