logo Sign In

ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE?? — Page 5

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: auximenies

On a related note, are there any pics of the chimp and the old woman that were composited (is that a word?) for the Emperor? I mean, before the images were tweaked.


There was no chimp or old woman composited in Empire. That was an actual rubber mask.


The old woman was uncredited... and the eyes were that of a chimp or gorilla. That wasn't a mask.
Why hello there
Author
Time
Post link
The eyes and lips are shakey, so that may be true to a degree, but I know that the "skin" around the eyes is from a mask.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
It's a woman wearing a prosthetic forehead thing similar to Mcdiarmid. And a chimp's eyes superimposed. And Clive Revill's voice. And since everybody's chiming in with their opinion: the special edition sucks George Kennedy's balls.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: auximenies
Originally posted by: THX
...or ROTJ (2004) to honor Sebastian Shaw?

I'll go with this one as the best analogy to the SE screening to honor the model work.

Some of Sebastian Shaw's performance was eliminated. And what remains was tinkered with. Hey, his eyebrow movements were part of his performance.

Clive has nothing left in ESB. And Prowse never participated in ROTS.


Absolutely. Sabastian Shaw had a short, but excellent and moving preformence. Tweaking his face with CGI alters his preformence. Eliminating him completely from the final scene shows that Lucas had no respect for the man.

But honestly, I think Lucas doesn't have respect for anyone that worked on any of his movies. The best movies are big collaberations where lots of people with lots of talents do thier best to bring a collective vision to the screen. Lucas's vision was the main vision for Star Wars (1977) but lots of other people had visions that went into it. Ralph McQuarrie's artwork fueled much of the modelwork and charecter design. The modelmakers themselves had a huge vision that they brought to the screen. But once the film is done, Lucas just selfishley says, "It's mine. I can do what I want with it. My precious..." and does whatever he wants with it.

I recently purchased the Peter Jackson's Kind Kong extended edition and watched the 3 hour documentary on making the film. It was a huge, great collaberation, and as much as the crew praises Jackson, Jackson prasies the crew moreso. It's the same on his LOTR documentaries. Jackson is obviously proud to have had that kind of collaberation, proud that he was part of it, and constantly thanks everyone for making such a great movie.

But when I watch Star Wars documentaries like Empire of Dreams, I see interviews edited down to just praising Lucas, and Lucas praising no one but himself and the "saga." I get the aura of a slave owner from him, like he just expects all his cast and crew to just do whatever he expects, and he doesn't have to mention them when talking about the final outcome of the films. Jackson's documentaries have tons of footage of other people, cast and crew, talknig about thier parts, obviously not as much as him (he's the director; more time to film later for documentary) but everyone gets a fair share of on screen time to show everyone thier part of the film. Where's the Star Wars documentary where we see modelmakers showing how they achieved it? Where are editors talking about how they edited it? Where's cameraman talking about the tough shots and how he accomplished them?

Lucas takes his films when thier done, and from that point on, they are his and no one else's and he can do whatever he wants to them. A director has that right on paper, but morally, directors need to share their films, and their success, with their crew. It's sad, because Lucas wasn't always like this. Back when the movies first came out, he didn't claim the films to be soley his own. But its so different now. Empire of Dreams even says Lucas wrote the script for ESB. It doesn't even mention the real screenwriters! That has got to be one of the greatest injustices.

I think its lucky Peterson is even getting to do this book...it was probably edited by Lucasfilm to add Lucas praise every other sentance.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
The Empire Strikes Back was written, first draft after Leigh Brackett died, by George Lucas. The foundation of that story was written by Lucas. Lawrence Kasdan and Kershner eventually beefed up the dialogue and other tweaks. But, that film doesn't work without Lucas doing that first draft after Brackett died. He gave her credit even when nothing from her original script remains.....

And the Jackson love is getting to be a bit too much. He gets the love eventhough he makes 3 self-indulgent films in a row (Two Towers, Return of the King, and Kong.) that no one takes him to task on.
Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
Post link
Oh, I'll take him to task on it. The Two Towers sucked and The Return of the King sucked King Kong's Balls. The Fellowship of the Ring was excellent ... and I even fault Jackson for that - - for getting my hopes up, from a pre-Fellowship state of pure cynicism.

Peter Jackson is a hack! We hates him!!



.
Author
Time
Post link

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
What probably annoys me the most is that you don't see other classic movies getting altered when a sequel/prequel/whatever comes along 20 years later, and if they are, you don't see the original version getting the shaft. Even with the dvd of Star Trek: The Motion Picture they went through the trouble of including everything that was deleted in the process of "enhancing" the effects. The only other time I've heard of something like that was the Close Encounters laserdisk, and that was on these boards! Now, granted, we don't have the OU of Close Encounters on dvd, but that's something I'm willing to let slide because while the original was released in '77, the special edition was a mere 3 years later and the newer effects don't exactly scream "3 years later," whatever that would mean. I don't think there's anything from post-1980 in terms of effects in the director's cut dvd, although obviously the cut of the movie is different. Look at Star Wars, they put back the Biggs scene at the end. For all we know, that could've been in an earlier edit of the movie exactly as it is in the SE. Something tells me we wouldn't have had a problem with that scene back in there, although admittedly that scene would've made a lot more sense if they'd have put back the Tatooine scenes. A director's cut is one thing, but what Lucas has been doing can only be called revisionism and what's worst is that he's doing it to movies simply because they're legally his. Tell me just how his altering of Richard Marquand et al's movie is any different than the altering of the Three Stooges's movies that he so vehemently spoke out against. It's hypocrisy. Lucas paid for the movie, wrote the story, etc. That doesn't give him the right to change things, but all I keep hearing is the apologetic "he can, so he should."
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Jumpman
The Empire Strikes Back was written, first draft after Leigh Brackett died, by George Lucas. The foundation of that story was written by Lucas. Lawrence Kasdan and Kershner eventually beefed up the dialogue and other tweaks. But, that film doesn't work without Lucas doing that first draft after Brackett died. He gave her credit even when nothing from her original script remains.....

Lucas wrote a very quick, rough script at that point. I'm willing to bet that Kasdan and Kershner made a lot more than just "tweaks."


Originally posted by: Jumpman

And the Jackson love is getting to be a bit too much. He gets the love eventhough he makes 3 self-indulgent films in a row (Two Towers, Return of the King, and Kong.) that no one takes him to task on.


I have no love of Jackson. As far as I'm concerned, he has a number of the same, unsubtle and sloppy, lazy appraches to making a film as George Lucas now does. He's just not as egotistical I suppose.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
Now, granted, we don't have the OU of Close Encounters on dvd, but that's something I'm willing to let slide because while the original was released in '77, the special edition was a mere 3 years later and the newer effects don't exactly scream "3 years later"

So, it's ok to be revisionist if it's within a certain time frame? I call shenanigans on that!

At least a reasonable facsimile of Star Wars '77 was released on DVD in some format. CE3K'77 has never been released in any home video format ... and Spielberg is far worse the villain than Lucas for that (in my book).



.

Author
Time
Post link
Lucas' contribution to the Empire script can't be underestimated. The bold structure, the ending, the radical departure from Star Wars, that's all Lucas, and Kasdan is the first to say so. George SUCKED at the Han and Leia dialogue however, (and he admitted it, which was very cool) and that is where Kasdan and Kershner came to the rescue. It also helped that Kershner is apparently the only human being on earth who can coax subtlety out of Carrie Fisher.

edit-oops, I meant overstimated, my duh.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
Lucas' contribution to the Empire script can't be underestimated.


You mean overestimated?

I don't deny that Lucas was the organizational force behind Empire, and provided its key elements. My point was simply that Kasdan and Kershner had very important roles as well. The first two Star Wars movies were far more about collaboration than one rigid vision.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
I think that Lucas is good at structring things, as Raiders and ESB show. I think that his problems lie with dialogue and directing actors.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
All this stuff about Lucas being more involved in the script then I gave him credit for is stuff that I really didn't know. All I have to go on is the film's credits (which is all I should have to have to go on.) But honestly, I think Lucas' biggest contribution to the script was the story, which we do know he came up with. Kasdan did write the script, or else his name wouldn't be in the credits. (So did Leigh Bracket) But my point in my post is that Lucas had no right not to give credit to the screenwriters in the documentary. Lots and lots of fans will take their Star Wars history they repeat from that documentary, and its wrong to not mention people that did lots of work on the film.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
Now, granted, we don't have the OU of Close Encounters on dvd, but that's something I'm willing to let slide because while the original was released in '77, the special edition was a mere 3 years later and the newer effects don't exactly scream "3 years later"

So, it's ok to be revisionist if it's within a certain time frame? I call shenanigans on that!

At least a reasonable facsimile of Star Wars '77 was released on DVD in some format. CE3K'77 has never been released in any home video format ... and Spielberg is far worse the villain than Lucas for that (in my book).



.


One big difference is that Columbia Pictures pretty much forced the whole SE deal on Spielberg with CE3K. And remember, if Lucas had his way we probably wouldn't have gotten the OOT at all, even in the crappy non-anamorphic state it's in now. That was Jim Ward's idea, and I can't really say it was the best one given the way he went about it.

In regards to the EoD doc, it's a different kind of documentary than we see on the LOTR extended edition discs. I still haven't seen the new extended Kong dvd. EoD was very much intended as "the story you've never heard," or at least that's how they hyped it before the dvd release. Maybe that's one reason why Lucas doesn't personally point out the contributions of others, but on the other hand this is the GL of 2004 talking, the one whose grown detached, not the GL of '77-'83. It's the whole "little engine that could" philosophy behind EoD that makes it more of a historical retrospective than, let's say, the LOTR docs.

Author
Time
Post link
How can you say Lucas has grown detached? There's no basis for that statement unless you're argument is that "he has treated the Original Trilogy with the proper respect" to which I say....horseshit!

As far as Empire is concerned, Kasdan and Kershner are given alot of credit when it comes to the Han and Leia apsect, as well as Kershner directing. But, the basic plot and major beats and the difference in tone, all belong to Lucas' original draft he wrote before Kasdan got a hold of it.
Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Jumpman
How can you say Lucas has grown detached? There's no basis for that statement unless you're argument is that "he has treated the Original Trilogy with the proper respect" to which I say....horseshit!


Uhuh . . . .

We can say that Lucas has grown detached because of the attitudes he has expressed in his latest filmwork and in his personal comments over the years. At the very least we can say that he no longer strives for the same level of excellence as he once did and that he is now more concerned with money-making than he once was. He has grown detached to that degree at least (whatever that degree may be exactly).

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
There is no evidence that Lucas is in it for the money and not in it for the art, which it comes to him as a director. Period. Him milking Star Wars has everything to do with keeping his company afloat. They're not WB, Paramount, or Universal. They don't have a cascade of films in a library.

And you don't spend from November of 1994 to April of 2005 and hundreds of millions of your own money, just to make a quick buck. You just don't do it. That's 11 years he could've done numerous amounts of projects(easier ones) to generate more money.

You may not like the Prequels but you can't say it wasn't a labor of love for Lucas. How can you explain why he changes the entire Star Wars saga from being about Luke to being about Anakin....openingly knowing that it would piss off the fanbase once all six were seen at once.

If anything, Lucas is stubborn...but not detached. But that stubborness has gotten him to where he is now. He's always been this way. He just has way more money and way more toys now. Plus, he's in his mid-sixties. The guy is set in his ways. Spielberg would even tell you that.

Twisted by the Dark Side, young Skywalker has become. The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader.

-Yoda; Episode III Revenge of the Sith.
Author
Time
Post link
What was stopping him from leaving the original versions exactly as they were and not changing a thing? What was stopping him from preserving the film history he so wanted to see preserved for his children? While he was at it, maybe he also could've made the prequels to fit the originals and not changed the originals to fit the prequels.

By all accounts, the visual effects of the original Star Wars Trilogy were astounding when they were seen on the big screen from 1977 to 1983, where even the slightest "error" has to hold up to the highest scrutiny. By my own account, they were astounding even on pan n' scan vhs in the early 90's. They look even better in their original aspect ratio, and they would look many, many times better if a new master of the original versions could be sourced from actual film elements and transferred to video at the highest quality dvd can offer.
Author
Time
Post link
I think that if Lucas was "detatched" and if he wasn't worried about making good movies, the prequels wouldn't have been very good.

Explain that.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I think that if Lucas was "detatched" and if he wasn't worried about making good movies, the prequels wouldn't have been very good.

Explain that.


Ha! First post, and I've already got a signature!

Now, who's gonna feed him? "Give in to the Dark Side!" Ha ha ha!
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic<br>I think that if Lucas was "detatched" and if he wasn't worried about making good movies, the prequels wouldn't have been very good.

Explain that.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: The Star Warrior
Ha! First post, and I've already got a signature!

Yeah, I couldn't resist using a Gomerism for my signature either. There's so much good stuff to glean from!

Pink Floyd -- First in Space

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Jumpman
There is no evidence that Lucas is in it for the money and not in it for the art, which it comes to him as a director. Period. Him milking Star Wars has everything to do with keeping his company afloat. They're not WB, Paramount, or Universal. They don't have a cascade of films in a library.

Then how do you explain the accounts where George argued that Empire should have been made differently in order to make more money? Sounds at least a little detached to me.


Originally posted by: Jumpman

And you don't spend from November of 1994 to April of 2005 and hundreds of millions of your own money, just to make a quick buck. You just don't do it. That's 11 years he could've done numerous amounts of projects(easier ones) to generate more money.


Hardly. There are practically no other projects that Lucas could have begun that would have made him as much money as new Star Wars films. In addition to the films making automatic profit (even if they had been horrible), you’re talking about a vast, drastically-reinvigorated line of merchandise. There’s a lot of money there.

He spent a lot of money making the prequels, true, but he could afford to do that based upon the guaranteed profits. Plus, considering all of the techniques he was trying to develop and all of the investment he was putting into Lucasfilm that spent money will pay off for years to come in the filmmaking world.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Post link
Not to mention the fact that movie studios and their corporate owners have been involved in making profit from film art for decades. Those in control are not artists ... they are businessmen who employ artists (and hacks) for the purpose of making money ... in a business where years of time and tons of capital must be invested to make that money.

Why would I assume George Lucas immune to such a money-making system when so many have been involved in precisely that?


If the prequels were so drastically different from the original trilogy that the original had to be changed to match, why not take the logical step and make a series of sci-fi movies that are not called "Star Wars?"

I will not be so bold as to assume Lucas had solely mercenary motives in making the prequels. Perhaps they were a labor of love. I have only external evidence to go by. If he had not deemed the two trilogies such a mis-match that changes had to be made retroactively to 20-year-old films, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt as to his motives. But his own actions demonstrate, to me at least, that the profit motive was dominant. Star Wars is a money-making machine.

Furthermore, the lack of any original creations by Lucas since the 80's leads me to believe he is currently a hack, and not an artist. These pieces of evidence would not convict him in a court of law, but they operate in the court of public opinion ... and I have formed my opinion of the man based on them - - not out of thin air or merely because I loathe his work.



.