Official George Lucas Discussion Thread (Now w/ Civility..?)

Which director made the best films, made the best visuals, or smelled the best? This is the forum to find out.

What do YOU think about George Lucas?

No Talent Hack
8
20%
One of the All-Time Best
15
37%
Grow up, fanboys.
18
44%
 
Total votes : 41

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:15 pm

Lady Sheridan wrote:
Zarles wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:Did any of the posts really get that nasty? I didn't think so. Heated, I suppose, but a long way from EFBR territory--and banning?


I think I pulled your hair and threatened to steal your boyfriend once or twice, but I'm not sure. Damn bourbon.


Which you only said because I don't have a boyfriend. :P

It's ok, I'm pretty sure I broke the bourbon bottle and threatened to cut you with it before Moo took it away. :oops:

Let's kiss and make-up...Marion and Indy style...


Trust me...

:: waits to get punched in the jaw ::
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:44 pm

Zarles wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:
Zarles wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:Did any of the posts really get that nasty? I didn't think so. Heated, I suppose, but a long way from EFBR territory--and banning?


I think I pulled your hair and threatened to steal your boyfriend once or twice, but I'm not sure. Damn bourbon.


Which you only said because I don't have a boyfriend. :P

It's ok, I'm pretty sure I broke the bourbon bottle and threatened to cut you with it before Moo took it away. :oops:

Let's kiss and make-up...Marion and Indy style...


Trust me..

:: waits to get punched in the jaw ::


I thought she meant she would smash you in the face with a mirror first.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:47 pm

:: points to elbow ::

Here!
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Lady Sheridan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:50 pm

We're skipping that part and going straight to the love!

ETA: Goddamn it, Zarles, where DOESN'T it hurt?
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:55 pm

Lady Sheridan wrote:We're skipping that part and going straight to the love!

ETA: Goddamn it, Zarles, where DOESN'T it hurt?


Here!

;)
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Nordling on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:56 pm

There's a middle ground here, I think, that's not being addressed. Sure, latter-day Lucas has made some blunders. The sense of fun that the original trilogy have is sorely missed in the Prequels. But there is a real sense of vision there.

Lucas is a firm believer that the artist is always, always right, and I'm sure he cites Coppola's GODFATHER, free of editorial control, as his example, or the success of his own STAR WARS. But what he really should be paying attention to is his friend Steven Spielberg, who was forcibly limited in what he could do with JAWS and instead thought of ways around his limitations and came up with a true classic film. Since then, and you can tell with his flops when he didn't bind himself, he has limited himself and worked with a strict structure without going nuts just because he can. RAIDERS was filmed in only a month and a half. E.T. was practically only three sets. For all the greatness of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN's opening battle, Spielberg held back by keeping the audience's viewpoint strictly with the soldier and not on a wider scope. These are self-imposed limitations and they make the films work even better because it allows the audience to fill in the spaces themselves, with their own imagination. Lucas, on the other hand, wants to show us EVERYTHING, explain EVERYTHING, and leave very little room for us as an audience to fill in the blanks on our own.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:06 pm

Great post, Nord. I couldn't agree more.

To a certain extent I sympathize with Lucas and his desire to show and tell the audience EVERYTHING, at least with respect to the prequels...because there are a lot of fanboys and girls who demanded that of the prequels going in.

"Mr. Lucas, will you explain why Obi-Wan disappears?"
"Mr. Lucas, will you explain how each of the twins end up where they do?"
"Mr. Lucas, will you explain...the force...the Vader suit...etc., etc., etc., etc."

I remember those interviews prior to Ep 1 vividly, as I was trying to glean info from them, heheh. No WONDER he feels like he needs to spoon feed everything to the audience.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:08 pm

Nordling wrote:There's a middle ground here, I think, that's not being addressed. Sure, latter-day Lucas has made some blunders. The sense of fun that the original trilogy have is sorely missed in the Prequels. But there is a real sense of vision there.

Lucas is a firm believer that the artist is always, always right, and I'm sure he cites Coppola's GODFATHER, free of editorial control, as his example, or the success of his own STAR WARS. But what he really should be paying attention to is his friend Steven Spielberg, who was forcibly limited in what he could do with JAWS and instead thought of ways around his limitations and came up with a true classic film. Since then, and you can tell with his flops when he didn't bind himself, he has limited himself and worked with a strict structure without going nuts just because he can. RAIDERS was filmed in only a month and a half. E.T. was practically only three sets. For all the greatness of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN's opening battle, Spielberg held back by keeping the audience's viewpoint strictly with the soldier and not on a wider scope. These are self-imposed limitations and they make the films work even better because it allows the audience to fill in the spaces themselves, with their own imagination. Lucas, on the other hand, wants to show us EVERYTHING, explain EVERYTHING, and leave very little room for us as an audience to fill in the blanks on our own.



I think that's a pretty fair description. But I do have to say that the prequels are not well made films. There's obvious plotholes, the dialouge is a step down from ANH, a terribly weak central perfomance that leaves the whole prequel trilogy without an anchor. Ewan MacGregor needed to be kept on his toes becuase there's flashes of Obi Wan there but he never sells me that this guy is a legendary Jedi. And this takes me to 4 things which as a major fan of the OT make me want to walk up to lucas, tut in digust and slap his neck-sac - Obi Wan comes off like an asshole when you think about it, Anakin's turn in ROTS is utterly unbelivable and the PT as whole lacks Punky Power despite massive budgets. Heck even some of the CGI is shoddy. The CGI for godssake!!! In a fucking Star Wars movie created by the founder of ILM. That really is unforgivable.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:13 pm

Nord's right - I think George's main issue is control. He thinks that by maintaining complete control over his movies, he's somehow making them better than what they would be if he farmed them out to the Hollywood studios. Well, maybe that's true in more symbolic ways, but imagine what the prequels might've been had he just passed the lightsaber over to another director who quite possibly could've gotten a better performance or two from the actors. In my mind, George is indeed a visionary with an enormous imagination, but he's a bit too ham-handed when it comes to ironing out all the small details that truly make up a great film.

However, keep hating on it if you all want, but I really think we're in for a treat with Indy 4. George's creativity, Senor Spielbergo's direction, modern-day effects and filmmaking techniques, (both practical and CG) a dynamite cast... I can't wait.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 pm

They should have used models. Models with CGI enhancement look better, IMO.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby Nordling on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 pm

TonyWilson wrote:
Nordling wrote:There's a middle ground here, I think, that's not being addressed. Sure, latter-day Lucas has made some blunders. The sense of fun that the original trilogy have is sorely missed in the Prequels. But there is a real sense of vision there.

Lucas is a firm believer that the artist is always, always right, and I'm sure he cites Coppola's GODFATHER, free of editorial control, as his example, or the success of his own STAR WARS. But what he really should be paying attention to is his friend Steven Spielberg, who was forcibly limited in what he could do with JAWS and instead thought of ways around his limitations and came up with a true classic film. Since then, and you can tell with his flops when he didn't bind himself, he has limited himself and worked with a strict structure without going nuts just because he can. RAIDERS was filmed in only a month and a half. E.T. was practically only three sets. For all the greatness of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN's opening battle, Spielberg held back by keeping the audience's viewpoint strictly with the soldier and not on a wider scope. These are self-imposed limitations and they make the films work even better because it allows the audience to fill in the spaces themselves, with their own imagination. Lucas, on the other hand, wants to show us EVERYTHING, explain EVERYTHING, and leave very little room for us as an audience to fill in the blanks on our own.



I think that's a pretty fair description. But I do have to say that the prequels are not well made films. There's obvious plotholes, the dialouge is a step down from ANH, a terribly weak central perfomance that leaves the whole prequel trilogy without an anchor. Ewan MacGregor needed to be kept on his toes becuase there's flashes of Obi Wan there but he never sells me that this guy is a legendary Jedi. And this takes me to 4 things which as a major fan of the OT make me want to walk up to lucas, tut in digust and slap his neck-sac - Obi Wan comes off like an asshole when you think about it, Anakin's turn in ROTS is utterly unbelivable and the PT as whole lacks Punky Power despite massive budgets. Heck even some of the CGI is shoddy. The CGI for godssake!!! In a fucking Star Wars movie created by the founder of ILM. That really is unforgivable.


I agree with you mostly. The films felt like they had no sense of wonder, except in brief flashes, because Lucas kept pushing, pushing, pushing to the next plot point. As stories go, they're relentless, and not in a good way. There's not much space to take it all in in the Prequels. I think the best moments of the prequels were when we didn't get this need to further the story and it kept what we were seeing in a close perspective. That's why the duel in TPM works so well. We don't care for the reasons... we're reacting to the pure spectacle of it. Same with the Pod Race. As much as TPM sucks, it's still the only film that has some breathing room in it, and a real sense of perspective.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Lady Sheridan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:14 pm

TonyWilson wrote:

I think that's a pretty fair description. But I do have to say that the prequels are not well made films. There's obvious plotholes, the dialouge is a step down from ANH, a terribly weak central perfomance that leaves the whole prequel trilogy without an anchor. Ewan MacGregor needed to be kept on his toes becuase there's flashes of Obi Wan there but he never sells me that this guy is a legendary Jedi. And this takes me to my major point as a major fan of the OT - Obi Wan comes off like an asshole when you think about it, Anakin's turn in ROTS is utterly unbelivable and the PT as whole lacks Punky Power despite massive budgets. Heck even some of the CGI is shoddy. The CGI for godssake!!! In a fucking Star Wars movie created by the founder of ILM. That really is unforgivable.


I remember when the talk of the prequels first began, and Lucas announced *everything* would be done by CGI. I remember being really upset because "Nothing looks real in CGI, it has that shiny, fake look. There's always a line around it so you know it's not really there."

But I told myself that it was ILM and it would look really cool, they'd done Jurassic Park and it was The Best CGI EVER.

And then the prequels came out...and looked exactly as I knew they would, which really broke my heart. I thought LOTR would look exactly the same, so talk about being surprised in a GOOD way.

ILM is really hit and miss when you think about it. The effects in H@rry Potter (with a few exceptions, like the smoke movement for the Death Eaters and Order) remain quite dire, whereas Davy Jones remains the best CGI character this side of Gollum.
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby bluebottle on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:17 pm

Nordling wrote:Lucas is a firm believer that the artist is always, always right


And I think when it pertains to their own work, the artist IS always right.

The question is: Are the SW films art?
User avatar
bluebottle
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:17 pm

Lady Sheridan wrote:ILM is really hit and miss when you think about it. The effects in H@rry Potter (with a few exceptions, like the smoke movement for the Death Eaters and Order) remain quite dire, whereas Davy Jones remains the best CGI character this side of Gollum.


I dunno about that. The Patronuses? The Dementors? RAD.

Don't even get me started on Transformers, either. Kaga will come in here with his laser sword and start whoopin' some ass.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:21 pm

Bluebottle wrote:
Nordling wrote:Lucas is a firm believer that the artist is always, always right


And I think when it pertains to their own work, the artist IS always right.

The question is: Are the SW films art?


heheheh, i've been waiting for this question since yesterday.

Yes. Yes they are.

"right" from whose perspective, though? Or is the artist's perspective the only one that matters? Not a snarky comment, honest solicitation of opinion.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby Lady Sheridan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:23 pm

Zarles wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:ILM is really hit and miss when you think about it. The effects in H@rry Potter (with a few exceptions, like the smoke movement for the Death Eaters and Order) remain quite dire, whereas Davy Jones remains the best CGI character this side of Gollum.


I dunno about that. The Patronuses? The Dementors? RAD.

Don't even get me started on Transformers, either. Kaga will come in here with his laser sword and start whoopin' some ass.


But GRAWP! The Centaurs! The way you can tell when H@rry goes CGI for a stunt, it's so creepy.

There's definitely alot of *really* good effects in Potter, which makes it so much more perplexing when they get it wrong. They've definitely improved as the series has continued though--but Sorcerer's Stone remains one of the worst, there was just no excuse for it to look that rubbery and bad.
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:24 pm

Lord Voldemoo wrote:
Bluebottle wrote:
Nordling wrote:Lucas is a firm believer that the artist is always, always right


And I think when it pertains to their own work, the artist IS always right.

The question is: Are the SW films art?


heheheh, i've been waiting for this question since yesterday.

Yes. Yes they are.

"right" from whose perspective, though? Or is the artist's perspective the only one that matters? Not a snarky comment, honest solicitation of opinion.


They're low art, though, and low pop art at that. In the end, though, you have to judge art at least partially by whether or not the artist achieved what she/he set out to achieve. I believe Lucas did.

The other two traditional questions, however, pull him down. What was it the artist sought to achieve? Was it worth achieving?
Last edited by DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby Nordling on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:25 pm

The artist isn't always right.

Jar-Jar Binks. That's one character that should have never made it past the sketchbook.

Without some sense of personal or outside control, you get what I call the "kitchen sink" approach to art, and while you can pick out things you enjoy, it's mostly a big pile of mess. It takes a skilled and confident artist to realize that not everything is going to work.
Last edited by Nordling on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Nordling on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:27 pm

Lady Sheridan wrote:
Zarles wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:ILM is really hit and miss when you think about it. The effects in H@rry Potter (with a few exceptions, like the smoke movement for the Death Eaters and Order) remain quite dire, whereas Davy Jones remains the best CGI character this side of Gollum.


I dunno about that. The Patronuses? The Dementors? RAD.

Don't even get me started on Transformers, either. Kaga will come in here with his laser sword and start whoopin' some ass.


But GRAWP! The Centaurs! The way you can tell when H@rry goes CGI for a stunt, it's so creepy.

There's definitely alot of *really* good effects in Potter, which makes it so much more perplexing when they get it wrong. They've definitely improved as the series has continued though--but Sorcerer's Stone remains one of the worst, there was just no excuse for it to look that rubbery and bad.


I blame that mostly on budget. I think the studio has got these down to a science now - the effects aren't going to look the best, but if they spend the money and the time on them the film doesn't get released promptly, and in a way, the Potter films are pressed for time. The main actors aren't getting younger. Hell, Radcliffe doesn't look Potter's age as it is now.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby bluebottle on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:27 pm

Lord Voldemoo wrote:"right" from whose perspective, though? Or is the artist's perspective the only one that matters? Not a snarky comment, honest solicitation of opinion.


i think that the audience can like or dislike it, but they're never "right".

now, that doesn't mean it's any good. that's totally subjective.

an audience, collectively, can agree that something is good or bad... it still doesn't make it good or bad - it's a shared opinion.

the only person who's opinion truly matters, is that of the artist.

if Lucas looks at his finished product, and feels that it reflects exactly what he wanted to achieve, then good for him. If the audience hates it, that's their problem.

imho.
User avatar
bluebottle
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Location: Canada

Postby godzillasushi on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:28 pm

DennisMM wrote:
Lord Voldemoo wrote:
Bluebottle wrote:
Nordling wrote:Lucas is a firm believer that the artist is always, always right


And I think when it pertains to their own work, the artist IS always right.

The question is: Are the SW films art?


heheheh, i've been waiting for this question since yesterday.

Yes. Yes they are.

"right" from whose perspective, though? Or is the artist's perspective the only one that matters? Not a snarky comment, honest solicitation of opinion.


They're low art, though, and low pop art at that. In the end, though, you have to judge art at least partially by whether or not the artist achieved what she/he set out to achieve. I believe Lucas did.

The other two traditional questions, however, pull him down. What was it the artist sought to achieve? Was it worth achieving?


Well yeah...in your opinion. :wink:

How do those pull him down? Especially the "was it worth achieving."

Just curious, not really looking to feel anyone's wrath. :oops:
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
godzillasushi
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Destroying Sony Headquarters in Japan

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:29 pm

Lady Sheridan wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:

I think that's a pretty fair description. But I do have to say that the prequels are not well made films. There's obvious plotholes, the dialouge is a step down from ANH, a terribly weak central perfomance that leaves the whole prequel trilogy without an anchor. Ewan MacGregor needed to be kept on his toes becuase there's flashes of Obi Wan there but he never sells me that this guy is a legendary Jedi. And this takes me to my major point as a major fan of the OT - Obi Wan comes off like an asshole when you think about it, Anakin's turn in ROTS is utterly unbelivable and the PT as whole lacks Punky Power despite massive budgets. Heck even some of the CGI is shoddy. The CGI for godssake!!! In a fucking Star Wars movie created by the founder of ILM. That really is unforgivable.


I remember when the talk of the prequels first began, and Lucas announced *everything* would be done by CGI. I remember being really upset because "Nothing looks real in CGI, it has that shiny, fake look. There's always a line around it so you know it's not really there."

But I told myself that it was ILM and it would look really cool, they'd done Jurassic Park and it was The Best CGI EVER.

And then the prequels came out...and looked exactly as I knew they would, which really broke my heart. I thought LOTR would look exactly the same, so talk about being surprised in a GOOD way.

ILM is really hit and miss when you think about it. The effects in H@rry Potter (with a few exceptions, like the smoke movement for the Death Eaters and Order) remain quite dire, whereas Davy Jones remains the best CGI character this side of Gollum.


Exactly, LS. Your whole post pretty much strikes a chord but that part especially. It pulls me totally out of the film, not all of it looks that bad but anytime it's a particularly light part of the film, like when there's a window behind the characters or they are boarding a ship or something it becomes undearable because you can't help but think "surely this should be better. Does know one dare tall George it looks shit?" Or, even worse "is he settling for this? Damn."

I thought the effects in Order Of The Phoenix were good - even the Thestrals. But ILM's uneveness film by film is shocking, really. Another of example of studios constantly seeing what they can get away with.
I will say this thought, the cross cutting at the end of ROTS was really effective I was actually tense for the first time in the film.
But already I can think of another ten things wrong with the films - "she died of a broken heart" WTF?!!?!?!? Are you shitting me George?. "Nooooooo". And all the crap about deathsticks too.
Lucas really really screwed up with the PT.
Last edited by TonyWilson on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Chilli on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:30 pm

I'll admit that the SW prequels are classifiable as art, if my learned colleagues will agree that just because Lucas could do something, doesn't mean that he was necessarily right to make that choice.

Deal?
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:31 pm

Lady Sheridan wrote:
Zarles wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:ILM is really hit and miss when you think about it. The effects in H@rry Potter (with a few exceptions, like the smoke movement for the Death Eaters and Order) remain quite dire, whereas Davy Jones remains the best CGI character this side of Gollum.


I dunno about that. The Patronuses? The Dementors? RAD.

Don't even get me started on Transformers, either. Kaga will come in here with his laser sword and start whoopin' some ass.


But GRAWP! The Centaurs! The way you can tell when H@rry goes CGI for a stunt, it's so creepy.

There's definitely alot of *really* good effects in Potter, which makes it so much more perplexing when they get it wrong. They've definitely improved as the series has continued though--but Sorcerer's Stone remains one of the worst, there was just no excuse for it to look that rubbery and bad.


Keep in mind movies like Harry Potter are hardly ever only ILM. Usually it's a collaboration between/among ILM and other studios like Sony Imageworks, Dreamworks (or Dreamworks/PDI), Digital Domain etc. Thus it gets difficult trying to decide who did what effect in what sequence.
For instance I know that in Transformers ILM did not do the transforming Moutain Dew Machine, Xbox, Steering wheel and the Cellphone all of which were farmed out to Digital Domain....I only know this because I was told as much by two ILM guys...Otherwise there would be no real way of knowing outside of anything reported in CineFx magazine over who did what.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:32 pm

To defend the SW films as anything other than pop art is to either reach deep into film school pretentiousness or deep into geekboy/geekgirl fanaticism, I believe.

Was it worth achieving - were the prequels, especially, any better/more entertaining/brought more to the world of film than twenty realistic films could have for the same budget and time involved? I say no. IMO, American Graffiti remains Lucas's best film and it required none of the bombast and hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the prequels. To me, the prequels were literal wastes of film. The man has such talent, but he has squandered it, IMO, not just because the prequels were unsatisfying but because there was so much more he could have done in the last 35 years.
Last edited by DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:32 pm

Zarles wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:ILM is really hit and miss when you think about it. The effects in H@rry Potter (with a few exceptions, like the smoke movement for the Death Eaters and Order) remain quite dire, whereas Davy Jones remains the best CGI character this side of Gollum.


I dunno about that. The Patronuses? The Dementors? RAD.

Don't even get me started on Transformers, either. Kaga will come in here with his laser sword and start whoopin' some ass.



Oh GOD!!! Transformers was a new low for CGI. Just insanely bad. Are transformers immune to the laws of gravity?
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby bluebottle on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:35 pm

DennisMM wrote:They're low art, though, and low pop art at that. In the end, though, you have to judge art at least partially by whether or not the artist achieved what she/he set out to achieve. I believe Lucas did.

The other two traditional questions, however, pull him down. What was it the artist sought to achieve? Was it worth achieving?


I think what he did with ANH was pretty astounding - as an artist. It reinvented the genre and changed the way we see films.

But then it turned into something else with ESB and ROTJ (i'm not talking about quality of film, because arguably Empire is the best of the trilogy) - and by the time it got to the PT... I don't think it's art anymore.

I think Lucas sees himself as an artist, and struggles with that more than anything. But he's really had nothing new to say since ANH.
User avatar
bluebottle
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Location: Canada

Postby godzillasushi on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:36 pm

DennisMM wrote:To defend the SW films as anything other than pop art is to either reach deep into film school pretentiousness or deep into geekboy/geekgirl fanaticism, I believe.

Was it worth achieving - were the prequels, especially, any better/more entertaining/brought more to the world of film than twenty realistic films could have for the same budget and time involved? I say no. IMO, American Graffiti remains Lucas's best film and it required none of the bombast and hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the prequels. To me, the prequels were literal wastes of film. The man has such talent, but he has squandered it, IMO, not just because the prequels were unsatisfying but because there was so much more he could have done in the last 35 years.


Is that what we are talking about is the prequels only? If that's the case then I am sorry hehe.

I thought maybe we were talking about the movies in general.
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
godzillasushi
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Destroying Sony Headquarters in Japan

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:36 pm

TonyWilson wrote:

Oh GOD!!! Transformers was a new low for CGI. Just insanely bad. Are transformers immune to the laws of gravity?


co-sign. Except that the Spider-Man films are worse.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:36 pm

TonyWilson wrote:
Zarles wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:ILM is really hit and miss when you think about it. The effects in H@rry Potter (with a few exceptions, like the smoke movement for the Death Eaters and Order) remain quite dire, whereas Davy Jones remains the best CGI character this side of Gollum.


I dunno about that. The Patronuses? The Dementors? RAD.

Don't even get me started on Transformers, either. Kaga will come in here with his laser sword and start whoopin' some ass.



Oh GOD!!! Transformers was a new low for CGI. Just insanely bad. Are transformers immune to the laws of gravity?


I completely and utterly disagree. Watch the first transformation of Prime (in HD, if possible) and tell me that's bad CGI.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:36 pm

Nordling wrote:The artist isn't always right.
Jar-Jar Binks. That's one character that should have never made it past the sketchbook.


THis is a coomon complaint about the PT and one I partially agree with but I want to ask you....

Do you mean that.

A. Jar Jar's physical design/conceptualization is poor

B. The writing of the character, his motivations antics etc is poor.

C. His voice is poor.

Lord Voldemoo wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:

Oh GOD!!! Transformers was a new low for CGI. Just insanely bad. Are transformers immune to the laws of gravity?


co-sign. Except that the Spider-Man films are worse.


If you both seriously believe that Spider-man and the Transformers in no way display any reaction to gravity then you both need eye exams....If you are simply venting frustration with over blown hyperbole then by all means continue.
Last edited by Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Nordling on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:37 pm

I think he thinks that he's been fighting the good fight, defending his vision against the encroaching Hollywood hordes, making sure that everything he dreams up and imagines makes it on screen without anyone clouding his vision, keeping it his own, keeping it pure.

Except that once he won that fight, he realized he didn't have any sort of vision at all.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby bluebottle on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:38 pm

Nordling wrote:I think he thinks that he's been fighting the good fight, defending his vision against the encroaching Hollywood hordes, making sure that everything he dreams up and imagines makes it on screen without anyone clouding his vision, keeping it his own, keeping it pure.

Except that once he won that fight, he realized he didn't have any sort of vision at all.


I think you're right, except I don't think he's realized it.
User avatar
bluebottle
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Nordling on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:40 pm

Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote:The artist isn't always right.
Jar-Jar Binks. That's one character that should have never made it past the sketchbook.


THis is a coomon complaint about the PT and one I partially agree with but I want to ask you....

Do you mean that.

A. Jar Jar's physical design/conceptualization is poor

B. The writing of the character, his motivations antics etc is poor.

C. His voice is poor.


There was no one there to tell George, "Man, that character just doesn't work. It turns a Star Wars movie into a Scooby-Doo cartoon." That's the problem with Jar-Jar. Look at Chewbacca. Even without dialogue, he's a compelling character. If the artist is always right, then every piece of art ever made is beyond any criticism, and that's just flat out not correct.

In short, yes.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:41 pm

godzillasushi wrote:
DennisMM wrote:To defend the SW films as anything other than pop art is to either reach deep into film school pretentiousness or deep into geekboy/geekgirl fanaticism, I believe.

Was it worth achieving - were the prequels, especially, any better/more entertaining/brought more to the world of film than twenty realistic films could have for the same budget and time involved? I say no. IMO, American Graffiti remains Lucas's best film and it required none of the bombast and hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the prequels. To me, the prequels were literal wastes of film. The man has such talent, but he has squandered it, IMO, not just because the prequels were unsatisfying but because there was so much more he could have done in the last 35 years.


Is that what we are talking about is the prequels only? If that's the case then I am sorry hehe.

I thought maybe we were talking about the movies in general.


I wasn't very clear, and I apologize. I was speaking primarily of the prequels.

However - I still don't think the original trilogy, ANH included, was anything special other than technically. I'd been reading that sort of story in comic books for years. Getting it to the screen didn't make it any better, to me. It was gee-whiz for two hours and then it was over and I didn't carry anything from it home with me.
Last edited by DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:42 pm

Nordling wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote:The artist isn't always right.
Jar-Jar Binks. That's one character that should have never made it past the sketchbook.


THis is a coomon complaint about the PT and one I partially agree with but I want to ask you....

Do you mean that.

A. Jar Jar's physical design/conceptualization is poor

B. The writing of the character, his motivations antics etc is poor.

C. His voice is poor.


There was no one there to tell George, "Man, that character just doesn't work. It turns a Star Wars movie into a Scooby-Doo cartoon." That's the problem with Jar-Jar. Look at Chewbacca. Even without dialogue, he's a compelling character. If the artist is always right, then every piece of art ever made is beyond any criticism, and that's just flat out not correct.

In short, yes.

?what? So you think the physical design of the character is equally at fault with the writing and Ahmed Best's voice?
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Nordling on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:44 pm

Yes. He looks silly, acts silly, and sounds silly. Pretty much a trifecta of suck.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:45 pm

I disagree. I think the way he acts and the way he sounds skews the initial design into suck.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:46 pm

Zarles wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Zarles wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:ILM is really hit and miss when you think about it. The effects in H@rry Potter (with a few exceptions, like the smoke movement for the Death Eaters and Order) remain quite dire, whereas Davy Jones remains the best CGI character this side of Gollum.


I dunno about that. The Patronuses? The Dementors? RAD.

Don't even get me started on Transformers, either. Kaga will come in here with his laser sword and start whoopin' some ass.



Oh GOD!!! Transformers was a new low for CGI. Just insanely bad. Are transformers immune to the laws of gravity?


I completely and utterly disagree. Watch the first transformation of Prime (in HD, if possible) and tell me that's bad CGI.


Everytime the robots swung around anything or dipped under bridges there was no sense of the huge weight of these things. Sure when they hit each other or smashed into cars there was plenty of big bangs and rubble etc etc but whenever they were just there moving or talking it was painful to watch. They felt heavy in their relationship to earth but as huge metal robots they didnt seem to have any weight within themselves.

I don't know if I'm making any sense in that description but I could point it out on film.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:47 pm

Giving him ears and other head parts that made him look as if he had dreadlocks was silly. But Lucas intended the film to be a children's entertainment, so that's less valid as a criticism. Except that most kids wouldn't pick up on the dreads. The voice is ridiculous and the dialogue sounds like the character is either mentally deficient or normally communicates in a different manner and so "human" speech is unnatural to him. Also, he's comic relief and I don't think they needed it.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby bluebottle on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:47 pm

DennisMM wrote:However - I still don't think the original trilogy, ANH included, was anything special other than technically. I'd been reading that sort of story in comic books for years. Getting it to the screen didn't make it any better, to me. It was gee-whiz for two hours and then it was over and I didn't carry anything from it home with me.


Haha, my new purpose in life is to get you to ADMIT that ANH is art!

I have to think of my approach...

Bob Dylan?
Jackson Pollack?

ahh fuck it, what do I care.
User avatar
bluebottle
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Location: Canada

Postby RogueScribner on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:47 pm

Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote:The artist isn't always right.
Jar-Jar Binks. That's one character that should have never made it past the sketchbook.


THis is a coomon complaint about the PT and one I partially agree with but I want to ask you....

Do you mean that.

A. Jar Jar's physical design/conceptualization is poor

B. The writing of the character, his motivations antics etc is poor.

C. His voice is poor.

Lord Voldemoo wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:

Oh GOD!!! Transformers was a new low for CGI. Just insanely bad. Are transformers immune to the laws of gravity?


co-sign. Except that the Spider-Man films are worse.


If you both seriously believe that Spider-man and the Transformers in no way display any reaction to gravity then you both need eye exams....If you are simply venting frustration with over blown hyperbole then by all means continue.



All of the above.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:52 pm

Chairman Kaga wrote:
If you both seriously believe that Spider-man and the Transformers in no way display any reaction to gravity then you both need eye exams....If you are simply venting frustration with over blown hyperbole then by all means continue.


Transformers is mostly venting...and utilizing an opportunity to take yet another shot at Spider-Man.

Spider-Man is horrible, visually.

But my eyesight does kinda suck.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby Lady Sheridan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:54 pm

Chairman Kaga wrote:I disagree. I think the way he acts and the way he sounds skews the initial design into suck.


I would have to agree. If he'd been voiced and animated differently into simply a kind and gentle creature, caught up in events he wasn't prepared for, I would have felt MUCH differently about him.

Well, that and he needed some spark behind the eyes, they're appallingly empty. You can hear the wind whistling. But his look didn't bother me so much.

But as he was written, he's horrible. And there's a plot hole--why on earth would a bonafide idiot be given a political job with Amidala? What the hell was he doing there?!
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:56 pm

I think the only shoddy effects work in the Spidey movies are in 3. The fight scene between Peter and Harry on the snowboard thingy looked a little shaky in parts. However, I think that pulling apart such visual marvels as a mid-air fight scene between two guys that can basically fly while looking 99% photorealistic might be heading down the road to 'taking things for granted'. There were a lot more problems in S3 than whether or not a flying snowboard looked real or not.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:56 pm

Lord Voldemoo wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
If you both seriously believe that Spider-man and the Transformers in no way display any reaction to gravity then you both need eye exams....If you are simply venting frustration with over blown hyperbole then by all means continue.


Transformers is mostly venting...and utilizing an opportunity to take yet another shot at Spider-Man.

Spider-Man is horrible, visually.

But my eyesight does kinda suck.


I will concede on the Spidey front that one major shot from the first film, that was utilized endlessly in the trailers, does in fact depict very poor physics. When Peter catapults himself onto the bridge the way he lands is awful since he suddenly loses all of his lateral momentum. I agree that was definitely poor.

Zarles wrote:I think the only shoddy effects work in the Spidey movies are in 3. The fight scene between Peter and Grande Rojo on the snowboard thingy looked a little shaky in parts. However, I think that pulling apart such visual marvels as a mid-air fight scene between two guys that can basically fly while looking 99% photorealistic might be heading down the road to 'taking things for granted'. There were a lot more problems in S3 than whether or not a flying snowboard looked real or not.


I would even extend that to any scenes in the first using Maguire and wire-fu. Like when he is running and jumping across rooftops. That live plate shot stuff looked terrible.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:01 pm

Chairman Kaga wrote:
Zarles wrote:I think the only shoddy effects work in the Spidey movies are in 3. The fight scene between Peter and Grande Rojo on the snowboard thingy looked a little shaky in parts. However, I think that pulling apart such visual marvels as a mid-air fight scene between two guys that can basically fly while looking 99% photorealistic might be heading down the road to 'taking things for granted'. There were a lot more problems in S3 than whether or not a flying snowboard looked real or not.


I would even extend that to any scenes in the first using Maguire and wire-fu. Like when he is running and jumping across rooftops. That live plate shot stuff looked terrible.


Eh, I didn't mind it to much. First film, lower budget. The rad-ass web-slinging sequence at the end more than made up for it.
Last edited by Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:02 pm

Man we are quickly threadjacking this thread that was itself created from another threadjack.

My two cents on Lucas is that as a film maker his work is mediocre to good, not great but good (also his worst stuff is not as abysmal as some make it out. Of course my bell curve on film quality is quite studly in the middle thanks to years of MST3K). As a frustrated artist that wanted to avoid the studio system, thumbed his nose at the over bearing DGA, and business mogul who has created companies that changed film making from the ground up I think his mark on the industry is major and for the most part progressive and beneficial.
Last edited by Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:16 pm

Bluebottle wrote:
DennisMM wrote:However - I still don't think the original trilogy, ANH included, was anything special other than technically. I'd been reading that sort of story in comic books for years. Getting it to the screen didn't make it any better, to me. It was gee-whiz for two hours and then it was over and I didn't carry anything from it home with me.


Haha, my new purpose in life is to get you to ADMIT that ANH is art!

I have to think of my approach...

Bob Dylan?
Jackson Pollack?

ahh fuck it, what do I care.


I admitted even the prequels are art, blue. But they're low art and ANH, while above that level, isn't

you're right. fuck it.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:21 pm

TonyWilson wrote:the dialouge is a step down from ANH


Anna that's a saying something, eh? There's a not a much a room down a there as it is, no?
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

PreviousNext

Return to Director Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest