PDA

View Full Version : Swallowing GL



FlipDog 2000
25 August 2005, 05:13 PM
Okay, heres a rant...and its about all fans of SW and even the HoloNet at times, and its been riding me for a long time.

Why is EVERYONE who is a SW fan completely and utterly blinded by the "magic" of it...along with every other piece of crap GL dishes out. Yes, its an overall good story and GL is a great idea man. And I very much respect the fact that he admits tonot being able to write or direct. (Although, with his money...you'd think fixing that wouldn't be a problem.)

My problem right now with the discussions going on is that no one will give any reasoning behind their claims. They say, "I love GL." Well...why? what about his style is good, what is bad. Lets get some REAL dialogue going...we are mostly (im)mature kids here. It makes me feel so old to say this...but I mean seriously...I wanna have some hefty discussions.

Thinithil
25 August 2005, 09:51 PM
Well let's use this as the official dissect GL thread. But instead of a generic "GL sucks" troll--which isn't going to generate a lot of heft dialogue here just because of its nature--throw out a specific topic.

Name something you believe GL is "not good at/is a piece of crap", one specific thing, and let's discuss it. Just throwing down a gauntlet isn't gonna do it.

I don't think I'm blinded by the magic but I sure do appreciate what he's done with most of his films.But if things remain civil--bring it on! :)

*ducks*

Darth Bile
26 August 2005, 06:53 AM
Then what are your reason for hating lucas, cause you sure didn't really give much reason as to why you hate him in the post you just did.

and not all star wars fans love GL, so don't generalize and group everyone into one lump group, that is insulting and degrading to star wars fans everywhere. Yes, i respect him, he had an idea, and followed through with it, no matter if it was good or not. He had a dream and he made it into something, that is always something to respect in a person, but that doesn't mean i love him, heck i've never met him, so how could i love him? doesn't make sense on that, now does it.

Sithspawn
26 August 2005, 08:41 AM
George Lucas, IMHO, is a great filmaker. No one has done for sci-fi what he has. Genius? Maybe.

It does amaze me how so many fans have gripes with Star Wars though, be it Ewoks, Gungans, Greedo, whatever. The fact is you love it or leave it. You're not going to change it, this is GLs baby.

For a long time I admired GL for his film-making skills, and for that short time long ago when I considered a career in the movie-making industry I would have listed GL as the one man in the world I would most like to meet.

But now as just a fan I find myself taking things GLs says with much sceptisism. He has contradicted himself in recent interviews. SW is about Anakin Skywalker now... no, I believe in the 70's you said it was about Luke Skywalker?! Greedo shooting first changes the character of Han Solo a great deal making him a softer character. Maybe GL has become softer as he got older?

I still love Star Wars for what it is, an amazingly enjoyable series of films. But as far as George Lucas goes, I find his magic is starting to wear off.

BrianDavion
26 August 2005, 11:22 AM
gee I like star wars.

gee what a bizzare idea!

I mean if you don't like SW WTF are you doing here?

boccelounge
26 August 2005, 11:43 AM
Okay, heres a rant...and its about all fans of BLACK JELLYBEANS and even the HoloNet at times, and its been riding me for a long time.

Why is EVERYONE who is a BLACK JELLYBEANS fan completely and utterly blinded by the "magic" of it...along with every other piece of crap BLACK JELLYBEANS dishes out. Yes, its an overall good story and BLACK JELLYBEANS is a great CANDY. And I very much respect the fact that he admits tonot being able to write or direct. (Although, with his money...you'd think fixing that wouldn't be a problem.)

My problem right now with the discussions going on is that no one will give any reasoning behind their claims. They say, "I love BLACK JELLYBEANS." Well...why? what about his style is good, what is bad. Lets get some REAL dialogue going...we are mostly (im)mature kids here. It makes me feel so old to say this...but I mean seriously...I wanna have some hefty discussions.



--------------------

What I'd really like to know is why some people are intellectually unable to distinguish OPINION from FACT. Some people have certain tastes, other people have different tastes.

And no one is going to agree with you on every point. That's just how it is.

For example, I HATE BLACK JELLYBEANS. Worst. Food. Ever.

I can't "give any reasoning behind [my] claim" because there is none. Taste and opinion is inherently non-rational. That doesn't make it irrelevant, but it makes it non-arguable, assuming one understands that "argument" means a rational debate over rational ideas, not an internet rant session.

But my brother loves them. When there's a bowl of jellybeans in our vicinity, he eats the black ones, I eat the non-VILE ones. it works out pretty well, and neither of us FEELS THE NEED TO RANT ABOUT IT.

EDIT:
More appropos to Star Wars, I think there's a subtle distinction between older and younger fans. I saw the first film when it was first released, and thus (to me) Star Wars IS George Lucas; it seems that a lot of the younger guys grew up on EU stuff, and tend to separate Lucas from the big picture. (and note: I'm saying "some" younger fans, not "all")

So, BrianDavion, I agree that it's absurd to spend time on a Star Wars fan site BASHING Star Wars, but I'm at least trying to understand the motivations behind it... some of these young dudes are just cranky, when it comes to Lucas. I don't understand it, but I acknowledge it.

Uron Teff
26 August 2005, 01:05 PM
According to bocce I am one of the SW 'kids' (with the age of 20!!!) But I haven't seen the OT in a cinema. But I claim to have the last presentation of the OT (without the THX and all the revised special effects) shown in the german TV videotaped. Ah... yes I am one of the last ones of a nearly vanished religion. We're called the video knights and the TV is strong in us.

But back to topic:
I have first seen the original OT as I was five or some like that. From first sight I fell in love with the Star Wars Universe and everything within it. I still feel the magic and I still admire George Lucas for this incredible work he had done.

But on the other hand I hate (not quite literally, but something in this direction) GL for changing his own "mastercraft" movie/movies.

From my point of view GL tried to deliver a message with his first movie ANH. Although the budged was small and he had to take no-name actresses and actors he made a milestone of movie history. His idea lived on in ESB and ROTJ and he managed to make a one time blockbuster with his first trilogy (OT).

But now GL sees that he can do much more with his achievment than just delivering a message. He can make bucks, big bucks, billions! And I think that's where he had starting to loose his magic. He lost his magic to merchandize and to greed.

Viewing the facts:
Why would GL revise his original masterpiece to a hodgpodge of time and technic?
All what bothers me is that he made this special extendet revised ultra version of ANH, ESB and RotJ. In my opinion as I'm viewing the "facts" it's crap to make this for delivering his original idea. No, I think he wanted to make money. And he also wanted to prepare and quicken the appetit (basically of the 'new' SW-kids) of the world for his new trilogy.

Just my two cents!

Corr Terek
26 August 2005, 03:20 PM
I agree with boccelounge and BrianDavion. What's the point of bashing Star Wars?

I'm another of the Young Fellas, at age 20. I didn't see any SW movie until I was 10. But even before I saw them, I knew there was a special magic about Star Wars that few other things have.

Does George Lucas want to make money? I'm sure he does -- he practically admits it himself in Empire of Dreams. But frankly, I don't care. I'm not paying money to enjoy George Lucas -- I'm paying money to enjoy Star Wars. This is not a hard thing to understand, people.

Uron Teff
26 August 2005, 03:39 PM
I'm not paying money to enjoy George Lucas -- I'm paying money to enjoy Star Wars. This is not a hard thing to understand, people.

You're right, of course.
As criticism is a statement and as such is made from a personal point of view. I criticize GL for doing such a poor job by making a revised edition of his own work. For sure he wanted to make money and that is for christ's sake viewable. And that's what I criticize.

Beeing able to creat more X-Wings and Y-Wings but not beeing able to change the surface of the Death Star from a viewable cardboard construction to a full animated Death Star surface.

Either GL makes the whole projekt right (i.e. revisulize the whole movie not only a bunch of scense) or he shouldn't have started this revised stuff. The mixture of old low budged movie flair and the 'new' digitised scenes destroys the whole ambiance of the original Original Trilogy.

Grimace
26 August 2005, 08:38 PM
Well, I must be a breed apart. I watched the movies when they originally came out, I love Star Wars, and I could give a fig about what GL thinks or says and find his new revisions to the old movies as seriously problematic.

I keep my Star Wars as my own microcosm, a place where I can enjoy my games, I can enjoy the stories that I read, and to blazes with what is considered "canon" or spoken by the man, GL. So here I am, heading into my mid thirties, still a grinning fan of Star Wars stuff and still spending hours looking over books that I've had for over a decade. While I may thank Lucas for creating the idea that use to create enjoyment and foster new ideas, I don't feel he's the same caliber of filmmaker as he once was. I can't put an exact reason to it, just supposition, so I'll just leave it at that.

So, as Darth Bile mentioned, don't lump everyone into one category, please.

Drendar Morevo
26 August 2005, 09:01 PM
Dear Lord Flip....could you have picked a bigger double entendre?

George Lucas gave us Star Wars, quite definately (IMO) the greatest Science Fiction Space Opera ever. He opened unto us the greatest amount for possibilities in gaming, writing, roleplaying, and entertainment ever. But then he HAD to go and ruin it. I believe I will quote Holdan from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, "Greedo Shooting First". I didn't mind sharpening up the visual effects and adding in the celebrations at the end of RotJ but there were SO MANY other things they SHOULD'VE fixed. I feel that George no longer controlls his creation and now the Money does.

Expect a Things Lucas SHOULD'VE fixed thread from me soon.

wolverine
26 August 2005, 09:45 PM
While i may not like what Lucas decided to do with his creation, i don't hate him for it. And as one of the older crowd (31 yrs), i got to see the OT in its origional glory.

boccelounge
26 August 2005, 11:13 PM
:D

OK, OK, I retract the "old vs. young" comments...

It seems clear that the strange "George Lucas vs. Star Wars" debates range beyond simplistic age distinctions.

What I perhaps should have said is that there is (it seems to me) a distinction between those that use the "Original Trilogy" as their main reference point for Star Wars, and those that use the "expanded universe."

Or, after reading Grimace's post, it seems I should add a third option: those of us who make our OWN "reference points."

I can get behind that. ;)



But my point remains: it's baffling to me that: a) so-called "fans" of Star Wars will expend so much time and energy disparaging and crudely attacking the creator of the object of their fandom; and b) people who have made ZERO worthwhile films will attack filmmakers on film-making grounds.*

Do you see what I mean? It's very odd, to me, to "attack" George Lucas for "ruining" that which he created. It's kinda neat, in a way, as it shows what power, diffusion, and resilience the Star Wars mythos has. But it's also absurd; they're atacking the man without whom the object they're defending would never have existed. Love is is a many-twisted thing, I suppose...




*[Please feel free to replace "film" with "jellybean" in any of my statements. I feel, deeply and with all my soul, that BLACK JELLYBEANS are a pernicious blight on all that is GOOD and RIGHT in this world, but I WILL NOT go so far as to suggest that they shouldn't be made, or say that people who like them are "crazy (http://holonet.swrpgnetwork.com/showthread.php?postid=231472#post231472)," or (having NEVER made any jellybean myself) offer criticism on the means of their manufacture, or suggest (DEMAND!) that my taste in the matter should be shared by EVERYONE else... 'cause, you know, that would be silly stupid ignorant rude and immature.]

sagemaster45
27 August 2005, 12:47 AM
Okay, folks, I just have to throw in my two credits worth. Bear with me, if you will, as this is my first post on this forum.

I am one of the "old guys." One of the very old guys. I went to one of the earliest screenings of the original film before it's first release. I was 16 years old...... and I've been in LOVE ever since! The Star Destroyer crawl at the beginning almost had me in tears it was so, well, perfect. Then Vader made his appearance.... I was hooked.

Since then I have been thrilled, disgusted, uplifted, p****d off, amused, insulted and so on and so forth. The one thing I have always been by the SW universe is ENTERTAINED. And that is what it's there for: To entertain it's audience. And to make Lucas money. Fine. Seems a fair trade off to me.

Yes, Lucas has changed. He is not the idealistic young man who made science fiction mainstream. I'm no longer the idealistic young man who stood for four hours in the rain to see the preview screening. Do I agree with the changes in the recent rerelease of the film? NO! But it is Lucas' intellectual property, his story, and he can play with it however much he likes.

For me, the most important part of SW is simply that I can play within the universe Lucas has created, explore my own creativity within that universe, share with like minded people and remain entertained. Once it gets boring, then I'll leave it with regrets.

I've a friend who spends a great deal of time and effort bashing Lucas. He refers to the man as "hack", "moron", "idiot" and "sell-out." My reply to him is usually some version of "When you've made a blockbuster film, pal, then you can judge his efforts on an equal footing. Till then, man, it's just sour grapes!"

Having said all of the above, I have to close with two personal observations:
1) Ewoks almost convinced me that I had outgrown Star Wars.
2) Jar Jar Binks........... Words fail me. Fortunately my store of air sickness bags rarely does.

Thanks for listening!

FlipDog 2000
27 August 2005, 08:01 AM
Wow! Thank you EVERYONE for jumping all over me for making one simple comment. Oh, and thank you for that wonderful Black Jellybeans thing.. Find the find and replace key in Word?...didja stay up all night for that one? or didja get to bed about two or three? Though it did get some dialogue started. So, here I am...defending my position...again.

Okay...genius!? ...om my freaking gosh. Some of you ARE willing to swallow any crap GL puts out on the market. Like I said, I love SW, but I hate what he's done and how all the "younger" fans are willing to believe ANYTHING. Okay...I'm almost 23, yet I have solid concept of Cinematography, Film Styles and what it takes to make a film. I AM a film student. Not just some stupid fanboy who went out in the forest with my friends and made a lightsaber fight on DV. I've shot 16mm motion film. So, I consider myself a little studied on the subject. When SSSSSSSE came out on DVD I was excited...but absolutely PISSED that more things had unneededly changed. The Emperor, Anakin, etc etc. And now he's going to "for the fans" re-release it again in 3D. Seriously...what the crap?

GL's 'Cinematogrpahic Vision" blows goats. He's a horrible writer and director. Look at Episode 2...all it was was nostalgia over American Grafitti. The character development of Anakin is paper-freaking thin. The arc of his , Padme and most of the other minor characters doesn't exist...its more like a cliff...also known as invisible to the audience. The only character we care about is Obi-Wan. Now look at ESB...he had help with the writing, and he didn't direct. If you want to talk more about (from a earlier post this year) his "Crappy filmmaking style" I'm willing.

I'm not denying that he created a world that is super great. I'm just saying that people are willing to believe anything he puts out...because its his final vision. He's said himself, he hates making movies cause it's so much work. What will you say when he redoes the trilogy altogether?...hmmm?

Darth Bile
27 August 2005, 08:24 AM
there you go, lumping people together again, must you insult and degrade everyone by grouping them all into one classification? so, you hate lucas, but you love his films? good for you, that's your opinion, so what if some people love both, and as for the new films, i absolutely loved them, i looked past the idea that people were reading from a script and just ENJOYED the dang movie, plain and simple, now does that mean i love lucas, no it doesn't, mainly cause i don't know the guy, i don't care what people say about a person til i meet them myself, as i said about critics, if ya down put a person, don't tell me, cause you'll just be ignored til i meet the person.

and as for you filming in 16mm, fine, that's all and great, and there y ou are insulting people who make films themselves, here, if you don't remember what you said i'll quote you, unfortunately won't be in the blocks cause i have no clue how to do that.

"quote" Not just some stupid fanboy who went out in the forest with my friends and made a lightsaber fight on DV. "quote.

from what i'm reading in that is you hate and think they are stupid and not intelligent enough to go to film school to learn how to make a film, well, that there is very insulting to those people. oh, by the way, i loved the films, but that doesn't mean i love lucas.

P.S. i didn't jump over you cause of your comment, i jumped over you because of your generalization of everyone.

Corr Terek
27 August 2005, 09:29 AM
*Rant On*

I just don't get it.

I love Star Wars. Somehow that makes me ignorant and stupid. Why?

Please do not assume that all of us here at the Holonet are ignorant of filming and acting technique. My dad happens to be an accomplished stage director for a Southern art college. His boss had his own TV show when he was 10. My dad is also an experienced animatronics man and puppeteer, has studied filmmaking, and has probably done more with old-school special effects than many people on this forum. I respect his talents and abilities, and have tried to learn from him.

My dad has not said one word of criticism about Star Wars. Why? Maybe because he doesn't see a need to. Maybe because he recognizes that Star Wars is entertainment, not high art.

For myself, I have done my best to enjoy the Star Wars universe in as many ways as I can. Is George Lucas the director he once was? Probably not, but each movie or TV show he creates adds a little more to the universe, and *that's* what I'm rooting for. And I'm tired of being told I'm some sort of sappy ignoramus because I feel that way.

*End Rant*

Edit: Thanks for the reminder, Grimace.

Grimace
27 August 2005, 10:26 AM
I just want to make a mention here that people need to remain level headed in this discussion. Refrain from making direct, personal attacks against others, either rude or sugar-coated. Stick with the discussion and there won't be any problems.

Remember, if a person's post gets you hot headed, don't post right away, as what you do post will probably be of a tone that will get you in trouble.

Carry on.

BrianDavion
27 August 2005, 01:29 PM
you claim to be a film student flipdog..

so what?

this doesn't give you rights to bash our opinion.

for your sake here's the jellybeans arguement is simplier terms.

PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERNT TASTES.

I know people nwho hated LOTR, I lvoed it. same thing. indeed they hated it for many of the same reasons I lvoed it.same thing, you claim to hate GL's garbage? well guess like. I LIKE IT!

I LIKE EWOKS!
I LIKE THE PREQUALS!

and guess what ladies and gentlemen! I EVEN OCCASIONALLY LAUGHED AT JAR JAR BINKS!

I didn't go into the prequals expecting cinamatic masterpeice, I didn't go into it expecting the film equivilant of the second coming of christ (although one could argue that is indeed what the prequals where, weather or not they where any good or not)


do I belive anything he puts out?

well let's just say star wars has always been about suspension of disbelive.

the fact is star wars, prequal or orginal, if you use the idiot high and mighty way of judging a movie by how artsy fartsy it is.. SUCKS.

there's a reason SW has never won a oscar for best picture

Salith
28 August 2005, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by FlipDog 2000
Wow! Thank you EVERYONE for jumping all over me for making one simple comment.
They jumped on you for not qualifying why you hate GL/SW, but you failed to see that. Oh well.
Small tip... if you say you hate something, at least have the wit and intelligence to explain why you hate something or else you just look like every other troll on the internet.

Master Dao Rin
28 August 2005, 10:44 AM
Why do I admire George Lucas?

Hmmm.

After thinking about it, its not too hard to put into words, although the truth of the matter is probably much deeper than words will ever be able to express.

He does his own thing. Nobody tells him what to make. As a filmmaker myself, I have come to appreciate why George did this for himself. Coming to this realization has validated and made me appreciate more what George Lucas did for all of us: gave us a fresh interesting take on an old story in an otherwise drab industry of rehashing plotlines. Just look at the new crop of "notables" in the industry today, all acknowledging the same sentiment as to why they got into the industry like myself.

His story is brillant. Say what you will about his directing or writing skills, or the fact that you slavishly pile tons of your own hard earned cash into his pockets for apparently inexplicable reasons, the fact is the story is great. Almost nobody can consciously EXPLAIN why the story attracts them so to the satisfaction of those that ask them, but the fact of the matter is people go see these movies. And not just once. Heck, even my own mother has seen these movies. And she's only seen SIX movies in a theater in her entire life. Guess which ones. For no other reason then that, I can but hope deep down in my dark Freudian recesses of my subconscious that one of the reasons this is so is that she is making a connection with the thing that her son loves so much. That being said, what other movies do you know of that you're entirely family has shared in the experience in and reached a consensus on? Is this any different from the King Arthurian saga? Or Tom Sawyer?

He makes me dream. Good dreams. Not weird Clockwork Orange dreams. Granted, they are not Jessica Simpson dreams, but they are still near and dear to my heart. I have devoted my life to making them a realization. I am sure this is the same sort of devotion that other great people have experienced with their own apothesis. Christians and the Bible, for instance.

I have learned about life from his story. He asked us to think about things from his admittedly simpliestic starting point, but I did as I was told. And it has made me stronger, more appreciative of what's real and what's not. Of what matters and what does not. It made me go out and seek the answers to life's questions, and not stop until I have attained them. It's helped me learn what love is really about. About loss, about choices.

There is more to be sure, but those are the most important points.

All that from the ideas of one man. George is just a convenient idol. But I have not lost the meaning to the image of the idol.

Have you?

boccelounge
28 August 2005, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Grimace
Refrain from making direct, personal attacks against others, either rude or sugar-coated. Stick with the discussion and there won't be any problems.

Thanks, Grimace, for the reminder (and the pun-- "sugar-coated"-- hee!).

But let me point how difficult it is to "stick with the discussion" when some posters make it about themselves... this whole "I'm a few months out of film school, and therefore I know much more about film-making than George Lucas" thing makes it impossible to discuss this topic without getting personal.

My point is simply this: if we want to keep this an impersonal discussion of ideas, it's not enough to avoid dscussing other people-- we've also got to keep "our own persons" out of it. :)



And, all of ths aside, I hope you had a good birthday, FlipDog. :)

BrianDavion
28 August 2005, 07:06 PM
aye, I mean flip dog's film comment school. the only POSSIABLE reply you could make could be a slight against him.

that being said I will note that George Lucas has GRADUATED Film School and produced 9 blockbuster movies.

he's obviously doing something right

PneumaZ
29 August 2005, 06:50 AM
This really is a no-win arguement. Take a note from a belief and an idea (compliments of Dogma). People have killed over beliefs because a belief is imutable. But an idea is just that, a changing ever evolving idea.

Can a belief be that too? Sure it can. But i find when it comes to SW many people are in either the very rigid belief camp or the flexible idea camp. If someone loves SW, why deny them that? Why ask for them to explain it? Why should they? Its their business. Now if they want to, great. But dont berate, belittle, or discredit their ideas because they dont align with your own.

In the end, no camp is right because it is all personal. I choose to embrace SW as a whole. Does that make me right? Of course not, but that does not make me 'wrong' or 'misguided' or 'blind'. I too went to film school. The Savannah College of Art and Design. Magna Cum Laude 2003. I minored in film, majored in special effects. But that doesnt make me a better judge of films for anyone else. It just gives me the proper tools to do what i want to for a living.

SW for me shall always be something i cherished as a child and rediscovered as an adult. I could sit here and argue why i still love it today. But i would rather end by saying, lets not argue. Even though we do not mean to, feelings will be hurt and eventually the thread will be closed because the passions run high when SW is involved.

Blue Skies and Happy Thoughts.

FlipDog 2000
29 August 2005, 05:20 PM
I would like to apologize if I came off to harshly and may have sounded pigheaded when talking about Film. Yes, Lucas graduated from film school and has numerous blockbusters. However, even if it does sound pigheaded, I have specifically studied Cinematography and Script Analysis for the past 3 years. Along with training on site to be a Gaffer/Grip...on Film sets. And I'm from dorky ol Idaho.

All that was meant was that Lucas doesn't follow the 'rules' (they're more like guidelines) of the trade. Yes, that's good sometimes, innovation is good. But (and now I feel old) I happen to prefer Film over Lucas' digital. See, film is imperfect...like how we see the world. Digital, there is very few errors and such a high sampling rate that it looks 'too perfect.' I perfer the 'gritty' look of the OT. The "I don't have unlimited amounts of money" look.

My other point was that most people will, regardless of if its good or not, love anything that Lucas puts out that's related to SW.

Though I very much agree that this is a no win argument. Anyways, just thought I would specify a little. And please remember...each time I've posted in my, how you say "lumping together," I have always specified that it's MOST PEOPLE. Not everyone...and especially not everyone on the HoloNet.

FlipDog 2000
29 August 2005, 05:20 PM
...dumb internet lag...

BrianDavion
29 August 2005, 07:13 PM
All that was meant was that Lucas doesn't follow the 'rules' (they're more like guidelines) of the trade.


well yeah, no one's denied that, hell Lucas had made a living outta snubbing his nose more or less at hollywood IIRC.

and honestly, a lot of what they say makes a "good film" isn't nesscarily the case. a lot of the films that the critics etc are "good" haven't really intrested me.

Corr Terek
30 August 2005, 04:56 AM
My other point was that most people will, regardless of if its good or not, love anything that Lucas puts out that's related to SW.

Well, to me, Star Wars is kinda like being on the playground as a kid or (if you prefer) like going to an amusement park. Each time George Lucas does something Star Wars related, it adds another playground piece or amusement park ride for me to play with.

I find that looking at things from that standpoint makes accepting the newer movies a whole lot easier. Think about it -- on the playground, nobody makes you slide down the slide all the time. It's your choice. The same way, it's each person's choice as to whether they'll accept, say, Jar Jar Binks or midi-chlorians.

Salith
30 August 2005, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by FlipDog 2000
But (and now I feel old) I happen to prefer Film over Lucas' digital. See, film is imperfect...like how we see the world. Digital, there is very few errors and such a high sampling rate that it looks 'too perfect.' I perfer the 'gritty' look of the OT. The "I don't have unlimited amounts of money" look.

Lucas mainly went digital because it makes integration of CGI effects look better than if it's done with standard film-stock (compare how Jar Jar fits into frames between 1 and 2... it's nearly a tenfold step up in how well he blends in with the scenes... now if they could have just shown him getting his head ripped off by the ears, that would be another tenfold step, but that's digressing :) )

FlipDog 2000
30 August 2005, 02:51 PM
Well, I understand the easiness of pasting CG into Digi. Film still (to me) looks better though.

Thinithil
31 August 2005, 09:40 AM
Film still (to me) looks better though.

I like the look of film over vid/dig myself. I enjoy the reruns of Dr Who and the show looked much better on film in my opinion. It lost something when it moved to vid. But it was probably a cost-cutting thing.

Same with PT. A seemless look might have been preferable but there was no way he was going to be able to tell the story he wanted without making sacrifices if he used film.

PneumaZ
31 August 2005, 10:45 AM
Indeed. Film is superior to video. That's a given. But digital broadcast is about as seemless as it gets to film without the actual film. A lot of people can argue this, but if you take the movie Bandits and watch it, you might be surprised to know what was filmed in digital and what was filmed in film. The only big difference is the resolution, which digital vastly beats film with. But unless you are using an HD display or a Digital projector you will not notice the difference. And even when you do, it will just look more 'crisp'.

Now i think what you guys are saying about CGI vs Pratical Special effects is absolutely true. too much of something can be too much. I dont know how many times I have sat through a movie thinking, god i know that is CG or wow...that was well done but its still CG. I love it when movies either fool me and i dont notice it or is so well done i have to bow to their expert craftsmanship.

CGI is a great tool but is being overused right now horrendously in Film Media. And this is not the first time it has happened with special effects. when blue/green screen was mastered it was overused, crappy splices were created because they could, not because they looked good. Same thing with Stop Motion animation. If you watch certain genre films they are loaded with really bad stop motion, where other films with only 10 minutes total have some of the best work in that field.

It will die down...but it takes time. Movies like Lord of the Rings is a good example of a nice balance of practical effects and digital. Yeah its still a lot, but they are 80% done really well so you forgive the massive amount of work done. SW falls here too, they might have a lot of effects but they are by and large hand over fist normal CGI. The stuff in the Original trilogy special editions need heavy work and they are doing so. I see the use of some, wish they would leave others alone but no one can tell me that luke falling down bespins core looks worse now than it did when he was practically white and the background was super dark. Now they blend. Same thing with the rancor...those digital cleanups worked wonders into making it MUCH more cohesive as a whole.

But considering thats the kind of stuff i trained for and do for a living i am a bit biased. Wow...long rant...sorry!

FlipDog 2000
31 August 2005, 01:05 PM
Long, but well said.


Same with PT. A seemless look might have been preferable but there was no way he was going to be able to tell the story he wanted without making sacrifices if he used film.

That I don't agree with. I still think he could've gotten the same effects, but with more work. No, I'm not saying make the people do more work, but it has become, like most media, take the easy way out. Although I do see the benefits of being able to view the actual footage almost immediately after filming.

The 'crisp'ness to me looks too fluid. I can usually tell the difference between HD and Normal Broadcast. Like I said...too perfect. However, if you look at Europe's TV from the '80's...it's almost reminicent of the early HD and film. Why? Because of the fields of resolution. America's power runs on the 60Hz system and NTSC TV runs at half that. In Europe (and mostly everywhere else) that runs PAL sees TV at 25 FPS, runs at 50Hz. Much closer to film...and retrospectively, HD.

Randomly, you want disgustingly good stop motion? Watch scenes from the movie, "Faust." I just miss the glory days of models and miniatures.

VixenofVenus
31 August 2005, 08:45 PM
Ok ... first ... I hope FlipDog and I remain friends after I say this ...

But ...

I disagree with alot of what you're saying Flip. I agree that GL is not the worlds greatest director and when people flaunt over him for his directing the Star Wars films ... it makes me sick. However ... GL is amazing for just the random smattering of electrons at work in that beautiful mind of his which envisioned the Star Wars Universe those many years ago.

Flip, you should think about something ... as a Film Student (which I can honestly say tell these people I KNOW you are), you have no doubt learned some of the history of the film industry ... and historically speaking, you know that two visionary filmmakers are responsible for there even BEING a film industry ... GL and Steven Spielberg.

For those of you who don't know this already, the film industry was dying in the mid-1970s. People had stopped going to the theaters, tired of seeing movies which were either silly, stupid, or uninspiring. They were showing their preference to stay home and watch TV, which by that time was so proliferated through American and European society, that almost all families had at least a Black & White set, while most had more than one Color TV.

Then in the fateful summer of 1975, a small suspense/action film exploded. Steven Spielberg's JAWS was the hit the studios had been waiting almost a decade for. Most people saw JAWS more than once in the theaters. It made millions in a film market where a movie was a success if it made one or two million.

Then, for two years, quick hasty films copying the same suspense/action format were released, but not to stunning success. But in 1977, we all know what happened. GL and SS are responsible for their even being a Film Industry today ... they are responsible for the ease at which ameteur films are made and almost all of the technology used to create the "supposedly" crappy film effects you see in almost EVERY movie (including some of yours!)

GL is not a "god" ... but he is a visionary. Digitally filmed movies will be the way almost all future films are made ... for one simple, logical reason -- the film industry runs on money and film is more expensive than re-usable digital storage devices. Already, many TV shows are using digital cameras and cutting their budgets down so they can afford to make better shows (arguable).

I will agree that GL is not a great director, and he writes abominable dialogue which is not helped by the "great-looking, low-talent" actors he often chooses for parts (not pointing at any one in particular ... but they all know who they are!). But GL is still a GREAT FILMMAKER. I love each and every Star Wars movie, I love the Star Wars Universe, I love Indiana Jones and the Young Indiana Jones series, I loved Willow, I loved (the first) The Land Before Time, I loved both Ewok movies, and I'm sure I'll love the (probably) upcoming SW TV series ...

It's impossible to truly describe why you "love" something or someone ... you just do. Call it "opinion" or whatever ... but arguing about whether or not the SW films and GL are great is just plain exhausting ... because you won't get anywhere ... but as a historian ... I must say that GL can be credited (along with SS) with saving the film industry around the world when it was in a dire need of a shot-in-the-arm!

BrianDavion
31 August 2005, 09:50 PM
wow, great essay VoV. simply great

Darth Bile
1 September 2005, 01:39 AM
and flip, in your very first post, you did say EVERYONE, now if i knew how to copy and make it into a quote, i would, i will try though, will probably look like i'm just typing it though, which i'm not.


Why is EVERYONE who is a SW fan completely

Aldaron
1 September 2005, 03:44 PM
I guess it's like anchovies on pizza, FlipDog...

My wife loves them. I think anyone who likes them should be locked up in a room with soft walls...go figure! :D

*walks away, muttering about nasty, smelly, salty, slimy little things*

VixenofVenus
1 September 2005, 09:14 PM
Anyone here like Caesar dressing ... cause it's main ingredient is ground up anchovies!!!

BrianDavion
1 September 2005, 10:17 PM
ceaser salads are good but I wouldn't wanna have anchovies on my pizza

Iceberg
2 September 2005, 09:52 AM
so following this recent line of thinking, am I correct when I say the following?:

George Lucas = Anchovies

:?

PneumaZ
2 September 2005, 11:36 AM
i think what they were trying to say is that GL = your personal tastes. You cant explain it sometimes if you just like it. sometimes you can and sometimes you cant. Why do some people like coconut? i cant stand it. but i dont get mad at them for it.

basically same diff here. if you love him and sw, great. if not...more power to you.

Master Dao Rin
2 September 2005, 08:04 PM
The thing I find intriguing is that at some point, somewhere, Flip and other GL detractors were actually "one of us" - the people who like what GL has done.

I would find it really hard to believe that the detractors didn't find something to like about GL's creation, somewhere; if they didn't they I can hardly imagine they would have enlisted in a online group to talk about it, if only for research purposes. In other words, they had to have been a fan at *some* point in order to reach their feelings today.

That being said, then, Flip you must like something about GL that draws you to the movies ... and I'm sure others would concur with your beliefs.

boccelounge
3 September 2005, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Master Dao Rin
The thing I find intriguing is that at some point, somewhere, Flip and other GL detractors... had to have been a fan at *some* point in order to reach their feelings today.

But Jar-Jar changed all that-- at least that's my theory. ;)

BrianDavion
3 September 2005, 01:19 PM
meh Jar Jar wasn't that bad, and GL showed the wisdom of reducing his part to nearly non-existant when fans didn't like him

Fingon
4 September 2005, 01:46 PM
I don't hate Lucas, I don't know him, and I'm not accusing him of 'screwing up' Star Wars; it's his universe, and he can do what he wants with it. That doesn't mean I have to like it. I personally don't like a lot of things in the the prequels, especially I and II.

I don't hate those movies, although I haven't watched either for several years, but I am dissapointed. I'm dissapointed at wasted potential. The movies were kinda cool, but they could've been so much better. It RotS would have had good dialogue and been a little less corny, I would have LOVED it. But it wasn't, and I don't, although it is MUCH better than TPM and AotC.

I may be wrong about this, but it seems like it would have been easy to have made some simple changes that could have made the Prequels better. Make 'Ani' older and less annoying, give Jar Jar a smaller role, get some feeling into the dialogue, and, above all, get a better screen writer. That is my opinon.

VixenofVenus
4 September 2005, 02:22 PM
I've been thinking about this subject a bit more the last few days ... I've got a new perspective ...


Maybe ... we as fans of Science Fiction, have been spoiled to the vastly improving SciFi market. I mean, look at stargate, battlestar galactica, etc over the last few years ... even the "Dune" miniserieses ... they all had better writing and dialogue than the whole Star Wars Saga ... I think we've just been spoiled.

While the Star Wars "story" is by far the best (in my opinion), I think the writing on much of the newest SciFi television ... even some on shows like Roswell, Smallville, the 4400, etc. ... is better than Star Wars. And maybe the reason I enjoyed AotC and RotS (and TPM DVD) better than my first impression of TPM was that I've sortof accepted that all of the Star Wars films have pretty lousy dialogue/acting/writing ... but the story and the action and the special effects are just so GOOD!

Not to mention some of the best characters ever created ... they have so much depth (ignoring FlipDog's statements about Padme). Even the new characters of the Prequels have extreme depth ... and with the HUGE amount of fiction available for the Star Wars Universe, they gain even more depth ... look at Darth Maul. After TPM, I thought ... "Well that was a waste of a good concept and look." But now, he is one of many people's favorite Sith ... not mine, but I understand why they like him ... the fiction gave him soooo much depth.

Anyway ... I'm done ranting my second thought opinion now.

Corr Terek
4 September 2005, 05:13 PM
and with the HUGE amount of fiction available for the Star Wars Universe, they gain even more depth ... look at Darth Maul.

I agree. Reading the novelizations of the movies alone will give you a much better appreciation for the Prequels. Even Jar Jar loses some of his annoyingness. A personal favorite line (somewhat paraphrased) from the Ep1 Novelization: "Jar Jar may have been clumsy, and he had a happy-go-lucky approach to life, but he was no fool."

I would have preferred that to the Jar Jar we have now, but it's still tolerable for me.

FlipDog 2000
5 September 2005, 04:09 PM
Alright, I'll go back in time a moment again to character depth and arc.

Depth? Arc? Yes, there is some depth but like I said before, there is no character arc to many of the characters. The only constant through all the films is Obi and possibly Palpy. Padme doesn't have a character arc...and really neither does Anakin. Like I said before as well, its more like a character cliff. Padme wasn't strong at all in RotS. She was turned more into a minor character. What happened to the fight, the courage, the 'never say die" attitude? Its gone because the writer was too busy trying to tweak other aspects of the story. Anakin (and I'll stick by this until some deleted scene changes my mind) has no reason to remain Darth Vader and in the service of the Emperor. Saving Padme was the final straw that turned him to the DS. And once she's dead, he bellows out a mournful "No" that suggests he still has feelings and more light in him than he may or may not want. Anakin's fall was just so fast and actually sort of random.

Depth refers mainly to how much the audience cares about the characters. Yes, another personal preference, but its still relevant. I found that I didn't care one nitch about any of the characters except Obi. The same goes for AotC. Look at 3PO...main character in OT, minor lousy pun-based synthetic lifeform in...well...he's really only in AotC significantly.

Yes, this is SW and the rules don't always apply to Lucas' 'vision,' but it's still a visual story that needs the basic elements of character and plot.


and with the HUGE amount of fiction available for the Star Wars Universe, they gain even more depth ... look at Darth Maul.

Well, the reason that there's so much fiction to create depth, is because it's not in the movies. They have to create a deeper character to build a novel on because the movies are inadequate. Hence the constant gigantor "canon wars."

Corr Terek
5 September 2005, 05:48 PM
Anakin (and I'll stick by this until some deleted scene changes my mind) has no reason to remain Darth Vader and in the service of the Emperor.

Well, what else is he going to do? Play mah jongg? He's pretty much wrecked whatever life he could've gone back to.

Speaking of sudden character changes, how about Han Solo? I mean, think about it, he's fairly mercenary all throughout ANH, and then once he changes he's pretty much Mr. Up-and-Up Rebel General. I think something similar could be said for Lando.

Or how about our first glimpse of Luke in ROTJ? In ANH and ESB, Luke is young, pretty naive, and impulsive. And then suddenly, a year later, Luke is much more mature, and able to take on a sail barge and its guards pretty much by himself.


Depth refers mainly to how much the audience cares about the characters. Yes, another personal preference, but its still relevant. I found that I didn't care one nitch about any of the characters except Obi.

I cared about Anakin -- I didn't want him to go Dark Side. Granted, I didn't care much about Padme, but that may be because I don't particularly like Natalie Portman.

FlipDog 2000
5 September 2005, 07:24 PM
Okay...I agree with you on those topics about the prequels. I also have said in the past that the OT didn't have great character development.

Han: Well, I personally think his love for the Princess was a major factor in his character change. You can see touches of it in the beginning of ESB and then on Cloud City before the Imps. And in the EU, he mentions that carbon freeze was like being neither awake or asleep...just a big nothing. Gave him time to think.

Luke: Oh, major character jump. Though losing his hand may have forced (no pun I swear) him to mature. At that point he realized, he was impulsive and not strong enough to face Vader.

Vader: With no info from the prequels. Vader's character even had some depth. We knew his backstory before the backstory was really written in the scripts. Fallen Jedi who exterminated the other Jedi and became the biggest badass in the galaxy.

Anakin: The problem with his character is he's destined to turn. And that for me, along with his development (from "I'll try spinning..." to "Its all Obi-Wan's fault...") just didn't work for me.

Corr Terek
6 September 2005, 07:35 AM
Han: Well, I personally think his love for the Princess was a major factor in his character change. You can see touches of it in the beginning of ESB and then on Cloud City before the Imps. And in the EU, he mentions that carbon freeze was like being neither awake or asleep...just a big nothing. Gave him time to think.

Putting it that way, I suppose you can make a logical case for his character change. I'm still wondering about Lando, though I suppose it could be a "well, here I am, and I've got nothing else to do".


Luke: Oh, major character jump. Though losing his hand may have forced (no pun I swear) him to mature. At that point he realized, he was impulsive and not strong enough to face Vader.

I have to admit, the EU, particularly Shadows of the Empire, really helped fill in that gap.


Vader: With no info from the prequels. Vader's character even had some depth. We knew his backstory before the backstory was really written in the scripts. Fallen Jedi who exterminated the other Jedi and became the biggest badass in the galaxy.

Yes, and Vader's change was somewhat more gradual than many of the other characters'.


Anakin: The problem with his character is he's destined to turn. And that for me, along with his development (from "I'll try spinning..." to "Its all Obi-Wan's fault...") just didn't work for me.

I'll grant that the whole development of Anakin could've been scripted better. Of course, there's also a lot more time between Ep1 and Ep2 than any other Star Wars film.

FlipDog 2000
7 September 2005, 01:16 PM
Sorry, I never posted about Lando.

But I agree with you totally on that point. Well...lets see, I don't have anything...and I'm stuck here...I guess I better redeem myself...maybe...I guess..if I have to.

Chewie - Doesn't need character depth. He'll rip your arms off!

Leia - I don't know what her character is...she's just there. I guess she could be considered nothing more than the love interest.

Reel 2/Dialogue 2
17 September 2005, 11:38 AM
I guess I'm one of the brainwashed fans who believe Lucas can do no wrong when it comes to Star Wars. Each and every one of the films is equally perfect to me, and they all give me the out-of-body experience I need when watching them. What I don't understand is why my tastes should make others foam at the mouth. Is it because I exist at all? It's not like I filmed an idiotic wire-fu movie of sunglass-wearing mass murderers or made Commander Riker pilot the Enterprise with a joystick...

But, in all fairness, I didn't think much of his work in Radioland Murders. Granted, he only wrote the story treatment, but thar ya goo. And people, please please PLEASE get this straight, because if anything can be defined as a fact, it's this: Lucas only FUNDED Howard the Duck, as a favor of his fellow American Graffiti writers' film debut. It's documented in the book Skywalking. Read it. Th-th-th-th-th-th-th-that's all, folks.

I look forward to his experimental films... if they ever show up in theaters.

boccelounge
17 September 2005, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Reel 2/Dialogue 2
It's not like I filmed an idiotic wire-fu movie of sunglass-wearing mass murderers or made Commander Riker pilot the Enterprise with a joystick...

HEE hee hee hee hee hee....

I'm crying, and they are tears of MIRTH.


I have nothing more to add to R2D2's post. ;)