logo Sign In

A revised opinion of George Lucas — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Caster
I'm aware of the laserdisc transfers, but one problem.... My DVD burner... in fact, my whole computer.... is extremely unreliable. If someone was willing to send me a DVD, that'd fix the problem...


I could be wrong, as I haven't actually picked up a set myself, but I'm pretty sure that the people on these boards do offer the movies on actual DVDs with covers they made themselves. Someone help me out here!

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: greencapt
Quote
Originally posted by: Caster

So before you go insult/bash Lucas again, remember.... He's offering you Diet Coke..... Do you accept the Diet Coke and thank him, or do you whine about the fact that it's diet?


You say "No thank you George, but I'd prefer a regular Coke. A Coke Classic I think they call it. Its a good thing that I have the option...



Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
In 1999 I painted a portrait of a friend ....6 years after the painting was originally completed, I started to put together an updated portfolio ...I wanted to include what I considered to be one of my best pieces, but I didn't want to include the faults, so I took a high res photograph of the portrait, loaded it into photoshop and got to work rescaling the messed up perspective...

You're misrepresenting yourself to prospective clients.


Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Over the weekend my opinion of Mr lucas changed, and this is why - In 1999 I painted a portrait of a friend of mine playing his guitar. The painting is one of the best I have ever done, but was painted in a limited time period of 20 hours (five 4-hour sittings) and as a result of this restriction there were some bits I wasn't happy with. One of the things that really bugged me was that the perspective on one of the sitter's shoulders was wrong. This weekend, more than 6 years after the painting was originally completed, I started to put together an updated portfolio (I am an Ilustrator by trade) and I wanted to include what I considered to be one of my best pieces, but I didn't want to include the faults, so I took a high res photograph of the portrait, loaded it into photoshop and got to work rescaling the messed up perspective, painting out and touching up other area that bothered me, and after 5 hours of digital tinkering I had an image that I was really really pleased with. I must point out that I didn't use any photoshop filters or gadgets, I simply resized some areas to get the proportions right and used the paintbrush tools to touch it up a bit, but my point is this - yes, George Lucas should release the O-OT (The arguments for why he should do this have been made elsewhere and I don't need to repeat them), but I for one can fully understand being an artist who, unhappy with the work, decides to fix it with the help of technology that was not around or unavailable to him/her at the time the original art was created. My painting now lives up to my original vision and I consider it the definitive piece, the one that I will show people, the one that will be in my portfolio. I will not destroy the original, but I will no longer display it as I see it as inferior. You can resent Lucas' stubborness over releasing the O-OT (I do), but I will no longer call him mad, crazy, out of touch, LucASS, or any of that other crap. I also think that based on the various interviews / biographies, etc that I have seen, he seems like a very nice guy who's just doing his thing. Unfortunately his thing pisses off a lot of people, but from now on I will be giving him a break, and maybe some of you will too.


I'm curious. If your original paintings had become considered a masterpiece, a classic before you made your changes, would you then make these changes and refused to allow
anyone to see the original and pretend it no long exists? Would you force others to view your changed version instead of allowing people to choose for themselves?

That is a very good (and tough) question. I personally was never 100% satisfied with the piece, and I would have wanted to fix it regardless of the opinions of others (in fact, nobody ever pointed out these errors, they bugged me and me alone). But I suppose that if the painting was famous and loved, I would not withdraw the original from the public. Many artists have multiple versions of the same painting, often titled 'version 2' or similar, and it is up to the viewer to decide which they prefer, which I guess is what we all agree - Make the changes, but don't deny the original.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Simon
In addition to what warbler said, but somewhat in a different direction.

You said you were putting this in your portfolio. Does it not bother you at all that you will show this as a 'painting' you did and use this portfolio to get a job or into college (as i am assuming thats why you have a portfolio) yet it wont bet the painting you did, it will be an altered work. and its not even altered by your own brush, keeping it as a painting you did, its now been altered digitally. why didnt you just do the whole thing in photoshop if that was your original view? did you not have the technology to get the perspective correct when you painted it?

not trying to bash what your doing (or even say its wrong), and this isnt meant as a personal attack. Just trying to make a point that not only is what you did different from what lucas did to an extent. But also that the changes you made do have an effect on your work and perception others have of it/you

-Darth Simon

I've already stated that the original was done in a strictly limited time period which meant that I didn't have the time to fix the things that I felt needed fixing and as a result had to settle for 'that will do'. I also never said that I would lie and say it was painted by hand when in fact it has been digitally manipulate. Also, I don't know what computer programs you are using but as far as I know there is not one on the market that creates art for you - I sat at the computer for days working on this new version, it is my work, there are no photographic or outside elements, and some artists create pieces entirely digitally, it is a new, modern artistic medium to discover. I am an Ilustrator, which is why I need a portfolio. If a client needs something done, I will do it to the best of my abilities, and if I need the aid of a computer to alter a colour or adjust some levels (for example), then I will. It will still be my eye judging the necessary adjustment, my hand carrying it out, and my mind working overtime to reach the artistic goal I have in mind.
And of course what I did is different to Lucas (unless one of us makes a generation defining, cinema changing movie then waits 20 years and alters it, of course it will be differnt). It's just an example to get us talking, discussing, and considering other angles.

Quote
Originally posted by: Caster
Right now, I am working on a "special edition" of An REC Christmas Carol, with proper lighting, better effects, a more proper tribute to ROTJ... and when done, I will want that version to go on display, not the original. I'll still keep the original archived, but my artistic vision for it will finally be fully realized.

Similarly, George made THX 1138: 4EB. It was critically acclaimed, but he remade it

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Anchorhead
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
In 1999 I painted a portrait of a friend ....6 years after the painting was originally completed, I started to put together an updated portfolio ...I wanted to include what I considered to be one of my best pieces, but I didn't want to include the faults, so I took a high res photograph of the portrait, loaded it into photoshop and got to work rescaling the messed up perspective...

You're misrepresenting yourself to prospective clients.


How the fuck am I? They ask for something, I give it to them. What does it matter to me or them if I use a computer in the year 2005 to make the piece that they are paying for the best it can be. Every single poster or billboard you see has been through photoshop. If I had fixed it with a paintbrush (which would have made the original cease to exist, which is precisely why I didn't) is a moot point. I could have easily fixed the painiting with paint, but I don't see that it matters. Instead I have created a new digital piece based on the original. If I had gotten a friend to alter it for me and then put it in my portfolio as my own work, then that is misrepresentation, but that is not the case.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Shimraa

why is it different. just cause more people have seen it why does it matter.


Simple in my scenario the person who wants to alter the painting hired twenty others to work on it as, well. So, to make a change after the "boss" showed it at many art galleries and, they say it was great and, denying it's exsistance. Is not only disrepectfull but, from a historical point of view that one just might be the one taught in the future as, the "original". Then, the one that was thought of as, great isn't shown but, the one with a rocket launcher. Chances are, in my scenario the guitar was painted by someone else then the one making the changes.
Although, if it's painted by one artist and, one artist alone. Then, I see no problem with them making a change years later and, denying the original ever exsisted. I'm mostly trying to say it's different because, the person who hired the 20 people. Wants to also, deny the original piece ever exsisted very much like George Lucas.


http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Many artists have multiple versions of the same painting, often titled 'version 2' or similar, and it is up to the viewer to decide which they prefer, which I guess is what we all agree - Make the changes, but don't deny the original.


exactly! Now, why can't Lucas see that point?