logo Sign In

Does the PT work as a fun & fluff comic book production?

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
Or does it take itself and the story too seriously to even consider it fun and fluff ( oh, and sorry if you dislike the word fluff, I kinda do too, but not enough to not use it in this case haha ;-) ) ?

Cause lately the PT has been growing on me ( and yes, I do remember making a thread here that went something like 'Revenge of the sith is the shit and the flies upon it' lol ) from a different point of view, one less attached to the OT.

Yeah, so we all know it sucks compared to the OT, but honestly, I find there's lot of good ideas and things to be found in the PT.

What says you?
Author
Time
Post link
The problem I always had from day one with the PT is the story (a tragedy) takes itself too seriously for the kind of movies Lucas does in the SW Universe.

Why the OT worked so well is that the movies are essentially guilty pleasure movies that are fun as hell to watch, yet they define the SciFi/Fantasy Genre because there is more to them if you dig alittle bit. The OT movies do have a good story to tell, do have depth to them in that there is an overall arc, do provide humor with lovable characters to keep the movies from being TOO serious, have a blend of special effects and action to keep the movies from being too slow, and also provide enough drama that makes the movies enjoyable for adults cause they have those 'it' moments or goosebump moments. That was a formula from 77-83 that worked to perfection for Lucas, and I believe that is why the OT movies were ALWAYS going to be better no matter who wrote/directed the PT.

The PT in theory is a drama, cause a tragedy needs great drama to capture the bitter end and how everything ends up. But you watch Jake Lloyd/Jar Jar Binks totally make TPM laughable, you have a cruddy romance in AOTC that has some of the most cringeworthy moments ever put on screen, and then you many attempts at real drama in ROTS totally fail, especially near the end cause Lucas chose an average actor like Hayden to carry the film. Just think of great dramas: Platoon, Rain Man, Schindlers List, etc, all of them are well acted, well directed and provide that emotional punch that really grabs the viewer, a SW film is not made to do that, so in a sense it comes off totally distant from the OT. But does anyone here want to watch Schindlers List 300 times, even though it is one of the greatest movies ever made? No, it is not a fun movie to watch, it is serious, and sometimes you need time to watch it again, that is what a powerful drama does. A SW movie is just a fun 2 hours that you can revisit anytime you like.

The OT worked cause it didn't take itself too seriously, yet it still didn't cheese it up like movies Independence Day, where that is the ultimate guilty pleasure. The PT took itself too seriously, and in the end comes off as less dramatic as the OT, and IMO, it never had a shot.
Author
Time
Post link
Actually, that is why I feel TPM sort of works as its own slef-contained children's fantasy film. It doesn't take itself seriously, its quite fun and light, and it has its own story thats resolved by the end. Its a very imaginative film that has a very genuine conviction in its own vision. Now of course its kiddie, of course some of the writing and characterisation could be much better--but thinking of it as just a children's film, something designed for kids between the ages of 5 and 14, that doesn't matter so much. And the kid-friendliness of the film is an asset, not a flaw. I've always felt that TPM was terrible as a Star Wars film but actually pretty entertaining as just a kids movie that you shouldn't expect much from.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, I have always thought that too. If it had been a stand alone kids film, entirely unrelated to any franchise, people would still be talking about it today, it would probably be marked a classic, because most kids films are not near as good as TPM.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
The timing of this thread is great. Watching Spider-Man 3 last week, and thinking about how much higher a budget these big comic book movies have than the prequels, it made me wonder if the modern day equivalent of an Empire Strikes Back sized budget for each of the prequels would've significantly improved them. This does raise the question of what that would be exactly and if the prequels didn't already have them anyway. Going over the numbers in my head, TPM was 130 million or so and AOTC and ROTS were 110 million each. I know they said film processing accounted for several million dollars on TPM, but it couldn't have made the entire difference. For whatever reason, Lucas scaled it back for the prequel sequels. The other thing is how everyone was saying from before TPM even came out that Lucas was saving boatloads of money on effects because he owns ILM.

....

I forgot where I was going with all of this so I'll just leave it at that.
Author
Time
Post link
Actually, it costs much more to shoot digitally. The cameras cost more, the accessories and lenses cost more, you have to spend more time lighting, and your post flow is way more expensive. And in the case of AOTC because the camera was so low-tech because the technology wasn't really even ready, ILM had to spend more time getting green-screen extractions than on a film shoot. Its a total fallacy that digital is cheaper, one created by producers and marketing folks at camera companies, because its much, much cheaper to do it on film, and it looks a million times better--even if digital were cheaper, I can't see how a billionaire would want to shoot digital, but Lucas has this fetish for technology, and he got seriously burned by it on every prequel film.

As far as pricing, the reason TPM cost more was because it had a lot of the R&D done on that film. Effects-wise it was breaking new ground, and when it came time to do AOTC there was less inventing to do because a lot of it was already there, and they had a ready librbary of plates, animations, etc that they could recycle. There was still plenty of work to do--they made most of their experiments in digital doubling and digital characters--but not as much. TPM also had the most location shooting, with lengthy trips to Tunisia where all the full-scale podracers and significant portions of Mos Espa, the slave quarters, etc. was built. By the time they got to ROTS, effects had advanced so much that it wasn't necessary to do any main-unit location shooting, and there really was no major innovations to make--I think it was said that it was rather the culmination of all their previous efforts.

At the time, TPM was still very expensive, there was still enormous cost-savings because of the way Lucas made in the film and the fact that he owned many of the elements, but $100-$120 million was really the norm for big, effects-driven action blockbusters at the time. I mean the Matrix cost half of that, now that is something impressive, but movies like Godzilla and the like were all in that 100-120 mill range. Lucas' original hope was to do the film for around $70 million, but that wasn't realistic at all. AOTC cost less as I said, but its really not that less--most similar films at the time were in the $150 million range, but were they to attempt what Lucas did they would be much more. I mean The Two Towers has a lot of the same scale and cost much less but much of it was location shooting, while AOTC has a lot of alien things like Coruscant and Geonosis that are entirely false-reality, so I suppose it would be more like a $200 movie had it been made by someone outside Lucasfilm. ROTS is the real breakthrough, because that is more location-based in story than all the other films, yet it cost the same and was all in studio and doesn't look like a PS2 game the way AOTC does.

But in terms of ESB, ESB didn't have that big a budget for its day. I mean it did, but it wasn't unheard of, the reason Lucas made a big stink was because it was his own money. Apocalypse Now cost almost as much, and stuff like The Black Hole and Star Trek: The Movie are getting in the same range. Really, ESB was a fairly realistic budget at roughly $30 million considered the scope and quality of content and compared to contemporary blockbusters of its time. Preportionally, TPM isn't that far off from matching it. What was impressive about the prequels wasn't that they were inexpensive, because they weren't except for ROTS, its what they were able to accomplish for what they paid. TPM was a $150 mil movie made for $120, AOTC a $200 mil movie made for about the same, and ROTS a $250 mil movie made for even less. The problem IMO is that even though thats impressive to Lucas the Businessman, it really shouldn't be to Lucas the Filmmaker, because the effects aren't convincing in most of them. Really to get things to the OT level of realism Lucas needed to actually spend $150 mil on TPM (making it a $200 mil movie made for $150 mil), needed to actually spend $200 mil on AOTC (making it a $300 mil movie made for $200--because thats what Lucas was attempting, and thats why the movie looks like shit). In fact, if he could just control his tech-fetish and shot AOTC on film like anyone who actually knows about imaging systems would tell him (as oppose to Lucas, who wanted to do it simply for the sake of it) then he could have saved millions in cost because thats how much those pieces of shit HD Sony cameras cost him, and that money could have been spent on building better sets or making better CG.
Author
Time
Post link
I don't think PT would work as a comic book either. A comic book about trade disputes- FUN!

But seriously, in the sci-fi/fantasy realm, I think that anything that works well as a film would work as a comic, and vice versa. That's why the OT comic adaptations were so great.

Author
Time
Post link
The PT only works as the greatest failure in cinematic history, a complete anti-film, in the guise of being some great "masterpiece"
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
ROTS is the real breakthrough, because that is more location-based in story than all the other films, yet it cost the same and was all in studio and doesn't look like a PS2 game the way AOTC does.


Yeah, ROTS doesn't looks like a PS2 game, definitly PS3, or maybe Xbox, but not PS2.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Zombie can you qualify your statement about it being cheaper to shoot on film a bit further?

Do you mean back then, now or both?

Or do you mean film vs digital resulting in comparitive image quality? I really don't know what I'm talking about and would like a bit more detail.

Because obviously there are a lot of lower budget films and indie films being shot digitally now and for the cheap with pretty good results (not film quality though)

An example: Was 300 filmed digitally and as of 2006 would it be cheaper to shoot it digitally or on film regarding everything you mentioned above?

Sorry that's a lot of questions and sorry for the derailment but you bought out some curiousity on my behalf.

In addition to your points further cost factors between Ep1 and Ep2/3 would be shooting locations. Ep1 was in the UK at Elstree while the 2 sequels were filmed at Fox Studios in Australia. Australia being considerably cheaper.

"Well here's a big bag of rock salt" - Patton Oswalt

Author
Time
Post link
ANH SE = SNES

"Well here's a big bag of rock salt" - Patton Oswalt

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
I don't think PT would work as a comic book either. A comic book about trade disputes- FUN! ;


Isn't the whole question of whether or not the PT would make a good comic series kind of a pointless one considering that there are multiple comic adaptions of them? All it would take to answer the question is a quick trip to the local comic shop or favorite online retailer.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: see you auntie
Zombie can you qualify your statement about it being cheaper to shoot on film a bit further?

Do you mean back then, now or both?

Especially back then and now as well.

Or do you mean film vs digital resulting in comparitive image quality? I really don't know what I'm talking about and would like a bit more detail.

I mean in terms of pure financial cost--but in terms of aesthetics digital looks very poor comparitively as well. Its getting better everyday--for instance Superman Returns, filmed on the Genesis system, is the pinacle of digital cinematography so far and looks quite good, but its not near as good as 35mm. At least, however, we have now advanced digital cinema beyond the aesthetic and technical limitations of 16mm.

Because obviously there are a lot of lower budget films and indie films being shot digitally now and for the cheap with pretty good results (not film quality though)


Thats a totally different world. Low budget and no-budget films have been totally revolutionised by digital cinema because they can now record a decent image at a fraction of the cost were it done on film--and I mean a fraction. Its astounding how much cost savings and how much power has been put into the hands of those without million-dollar studio backing.

But here's the thing: they don't use the same cameras that people like Lucas use. They could never, ever afford to use the same cameras used on ROTS or Superman Returns because those cost more than shooting top-of-the-line 35mm with a digital intermediate. To shoot a feature film using the Sony F-900, or the Panavision Genesis, as ROTS and Superman Returns were, is to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just on the camera rental. Thats literally just the cost of having he camera on set. That doesn't count the price of digital storage, downconversion, coloring, or any of the other post-production expenses that come with such high-resolution formats, which are equally as expensive.

The indie revolution is in low-cost, low-res, relatively-low-quality digital technology. Until the RED system gets here--but thats a whole nother issue.

An example: Was 300 filmed digitally and as of 2006 would it be cheaper to shoot it digitally or on film regarding everything you mentioned above?


300 wasn't filmed digitally. It was shot on 35mm film, mainly using Panaflex cameras, but I've seen some Arri 535 and 435's being used in the behind the scenes footage. It gets that digital look because so much of the backgrounds are digital, but the live-action was all captured on 35mm film. One of the reasons is that HD cannot do slow-motion and slow-motion ramping--and 300 is full of those shots. These are some of the many limitations of HD so far that really need to be overcome before it can begin to seriously compete with film.

In addition to your points further cost factors between Ep1 and Ep2/3 would be shooting locations. Ep1 was in the UK at Elstree while the 2 sequels were filmed at Fox Studios in Australia. Australia being considerably cheaper.


Good point, I had forgotten about that.
Author
Time
Post link
I thought Zodiac looked better than Superman Returns.
I don't hate any of the prequels, but they work best for me as a separate thing, not so much a comic book, more like "well, this is better than most of the scifi movies I've seen lately. And that Obi-Wan is pretty cool."
Author
Time
Post link
Ok thanks for answering my questions.

I know the cameras that indie films use are nothing like those Lucas used. The camera cost would exceed their budget. My point was what you refered to in what digital has done for low budget film making.

In regards to your example Superman Returns and my example 300 (like I said I know nothing on the topic) I was under the impression that digital was choosen for filming because of extensive post production work/green screen, a myth you dispelled in your post chalking it up to producers and marketing. Which is why I though 300 may have been shot digitally.

With this in mind in your opinon why did Singer shoot SR digitally?

"Well here's a big bag of rock salt" - Patton Oswalt

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: see you auntie
Ok thanks for answering my questions.

I know the cameras that indie films use are nothing like those Lucas used. The camera cost would exceed their budget. My point was what you refered to in what digital has done for low budget film making.

In regards to your example Superman Returns and my example 300 (like I said I know nothing on the topic) I was under the impression that digital was choosen for filming because of extensive post production work/green screen, a myth you dispelled in your post chalking it up to producers and marketing. Which is why I though 300 may have been shot digitally.

HD was thought to be cheap because you didn't have to scan the film. In photographing blue/greenscreen on film you have to scan the film on a laser to get it into the computer to do the FX work, and that costs significant money. But back in 2001 the low-res of the Sony F900 actually caused much more many hours to get clean greenscreen extractions--on top of the fact that it was extraordinary expensive just to have the cameras on set. By the time ROTS came around things had improved, but it still would have been just as easy/expensive to do a film scan. Now, I believe--I hope--we've reached the point where there is actually a benefit to skipping the film scanning. But there is still the fact that when you add up the total costs its, at the least, equal the price to shoot on 35mm film and do a Digital Intermediate, and most the time its cheaper--and this is aside from the fact that its technically simpler and much more aesthetically pleasing. And again, there are severe limits to HD technology, such as slow-mo ramps. And the camera is always tethered by wires--you can't sever the camera and just have it be carried or mounted or flown around as you do with film, because the producers, DP, director and other personel can't watch it on the monitors--with film you can transmit wirelessly from the video tap, but you can't transmit an HD signial, so it limits your shots and your creativity.

With this in mind in your opinon why did Singer shoot SR digitally?


Because he liked the "clean" look. His original plan was to shoot it in 70mm. They got some 70mm panavision cameras and did tests. Then they got the Genesis HD cameras and did tests. Singer went with the Genesis.

The reason he did so--and this is purely my own inference--is purely because he liked the crisp, clean look. I think the reason he was attracted to 70mm in the first place was because it has similar qualities--it is super-detailed, and has that sharp, clean, almost grain-less look that HD has. HD takes those qualities and magnifies them.

But you'll notice in almost every case of a film being shot digitally it is the decision of the director, not the cinematographer. It was Lucas who wanted to shoot the prequels on digital tape--against the wishes of not only his DP but Sony and Panavision as well. They all didn't believe the technology was ready to put on the big screen in the high-quality that a blockbuster demanded. And they were right. Then Singer, Rodriguez and now Cameron--they are all directors who are more concerned with breaking new ground than about actual optics. No cinematographer has ever argued that HD should be shot in place of film.

Right now we are actually witnessing the birth of HD for motion picture dramas. The cameras that Star Wars and the early examples were shot on--those were cameras designed for news and documentaries. They were retrofitted for use in motion pictures, but that is not what their primary function is and was. The first real camera designed with motion pictures in mind was the Genesis, and thats why Superman Returns is leaps and bounds above anything that came before it (Scary Movie 4 actually was the first to be released). So if you think of that--in terms of cinema--as the first pinoneer, the way Lucas considered AOTC, then we are okay considering this is all prototype stuff. Give it twenty years and we might see 35mm film get replaced.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Originally posted by: Mielr
I don't think PT would work as a comic book either. A comic book about trade disputes- FUN! ;


Isn't the whole question of whether or not the PT would make a good comic series kind of a pointless one considering that there are multiple comic adaptions of them? All it would take to answer the question is a quick trip to the local comic shop or favorite online retailer.

Ask Major fatal Moebius. He's the one who posed the question.

As for myself, I wasn't aware of any PT comic adaptations, but I imagine they're just as entertaining as the films they're derived from.

Author
Time
Post link

Again thanks for answering my questions we now return you to your regular programming.

Originally posted by: zombie84

........Then Singer, Rodriguez and now Cameron--they are all directors who are more concerned with breaking new ground than about actual optics. No cinematographer has ever argued that HD should be shot in place of film.



Ooh what about Soderbergh, he's his own DP and uses Digital for his low budget indie affairs

That's it for now I'm sure if anything else comes to mind you'll be the one I ask.

"Well here's a big bag of rock salt" - Patton Oswalt

Author
Time
Post link
Isn't the whole question of whether or not the PT would make a good comic series kind of a pointless one considering that there are multiple comic adaptions of them? All it would take to answer the question is a quick trip to the local comic shop or favorite online retailer.


Hmm...that wasn't really what I had in mind with my question, although I could see why you would think that, because my original post is all over the place and a little muddy. I apologize for that!

My question wasn't if it would make a good comic series, I meant, does the PT work better for you when you look at is as a sort of big comic book story come to life on the big screen instead of comparing it to the OT? You know, less Akira Kurosawa, more a product of the 50s and its space movies...

If that makes sense, hah!
Author
Time
Post link
A train wreck by any other name is still a train wreck.
The PT failed as movies.
They would fail as comic books.
They would fail as grand opera.
It is a bad, telegraphed story, poorly told.
No tweaking of genre or medium can change that.
In the end, I really think they shouldn't have been made. We knew everything important about the "backstory" from a couple of lines in the original film, we didn't need 6 hours of poor exhibition.
The movie from 1977 was called Star Wars, not Episode IV, not A New Hope, not Star Wars Episode IV: a New Hope, just plane Star Wars