DrDre

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:
I agree they are better made in some respects. However, the main driving force behind these films is not artistry.

Again, I think it’s really unfair and unrealistic of you to say this. Borderline disingenuous, really. Especially considering many of the arguments you’re currently leveraging against this version of Star Wars were leveraged against it in the '80s, '90s, and '00s. I fundamentally disagree with any attempt to somehow strip the legitimate, and easily observable intent to create art from the finished films, or to attempt to redefine their existence AS art based on a romanticized notion of what George Lucas is, was, and would have done had he not decided to sell everything. George Lucas is not an island, and his “vision” is not as all encompassing or unfiltered as you consistently describe it to be. The work stands for itself, and your criticisms of the work are primarily rooted in a somewhat cruel appraisal of its artistic intent first and foremost, one that I don’t think stands up to scrutiny at all.

I apologize for dragging this out as long as I did, and I thank you for being very civil and patient with me. Obviously we’re not going to agree, but hopefully some measure of understanding (not agreement, of course, but the two aren’t synonymous anyway) was reached.

Well, I don’t see why any and all forms of corporately driven expression should be considered art, just because a group of people put a lot of effort, work, and craft into it. A lot of people work hard, and are creative in developing products, doing research, motivating people, etc, etc. Yet, these people are not considered artists. However, if the product you’re working on is a movie, you’re automatically labeled an ARTIST with a capital A. I reject that notion. These people should be admired for the hard work, craft, and creativity they put into their work, and their product, like any other person that puts their best foot forward, but artistry is not and should not be a qualification that is so easily bestowed. In my view true artistry is a rare, and unique combination of imagination, creativity, originality, perserverance, circumstance, context, and timing.

No apology is needed. I think this is an interesting discussion, where it is perfectly fine to vehemently disagree.

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:

No, I’m saying you cannot take somebody else’s art, tweak it a bit, and then claim you’re being artistic.

But that’s often how art is actually made. There’s an entire subforum of this very site that is dedicated to pursuing that ideal, in fact. You CAN take someone’s art, tweak it, and claim you’re being artistic, because that IS a valid artistic expression. Andy Warhol is probably the most famous example of that principle being accepted as truth.

And you’re still belittling the act of creation being done on the part of creatives who have been working at Lucasfilm since 2012 (many of whom have worked with Lucas both before AND after the sale) as mere “tweaking” when their contributions and execution is quite a bit more than simply “tweaking” something. You’re more or less just doubling down on the endeavour of disqualifying something as art rather than accepting it for what it is and judging it accordingly. It’s more than enough to simply not like the art being made, if that’s all there really is to it - there’s no real reason to go out of your way to suggest it shouldn’t be qualified as art to begin with. I think Attack of the Clones is a genuinely horrible movie on its own merits - I wouldn’t ever think to say it’s not really a Star Wars movie, or further, not really a movie at all because it sucks. It’s just a bad Star Wars movie. Going the extra step to disqualify its existence is sort of absurd, really.

I apologize if this reads as out of line, especially since I don’t actually know you at all and aren’t familiar with you outside of the posts I’ve seen of yours in this forum, but might I suggest that it’s at least POSSIBLE you’re a little more accepting of other people’s artistic “tweaking” of pre-existing texts and works (The Shining, The Lord of the Rings) partially because there isn’t as strong an emotional or historical connection with those works and creators as you consistently work to maintain with regards to Star Wars?

Because it feels like there’s an idealized, romanticized version of Star Wars you’re using as the measuring stick by which the Sequel Trilogy must be judged, and that version of Star Wars doesn’t necessarily exist in any quantifiable way outside of your own head and heart. Which might be why I’m reacting to the notion that there’s a fundamental betrayal of Lucas being perpetrated in the way I am, because I genuinely do not see evidence of that in the work itself. The Sequel Trilogy feels like an artistically valid continuation of the story he started telling in 1977, and on a general filmmaking and storytelling level, the films as created under Kennedy’s leadership at the studio are, on average, better made, more compelling, and more INTERESTING as a collection of films than what Lucas turned out when he had sole control of the studio.

I disagree they are more compelling, and more interesting. I agree they are better made in some respects. However, the main driving force behind these films is not artistry. The main driving force is a return on investment on 4 billion dollar’s worth of IP, and so one Star Wars movie a year had to be made. That’s putting the cart in front of the horse. Contrast this with Lucas waiting sixteen years to finish his story, and in his case there actually was a story to be told, even if the execution was lacking. I just don’t believe a return on investment, market research, a time line, and preset release dates are a prerequisite for artistic expression. They are a prerequisite for a product, that hopefully will have entertainment value, some artistic elements, some creativity, hard work, and craft. I think it is very telling that after two ST films the main draw is the resurrection of one of Lucas’ long since dead characters. I think that speaks to the lack of narrative, and artistic purpose of these films.

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:
Star Wars was always both art, and product before Lucas sold his company, but the only thing that was sold was the product, and the brand, not the artistry.

This seems REALLY un-generous to me, and more than a little inaccurate (and very dismissive) on top of that.

No, I’m saying that the people, that buy the brand have to work hard, and be creative, and original to earn the term artistry, whilst respecting the integrity of the original work. In my view the current Disney films are the result of hard work, and display craft, but lack creativity, originality, and a voice, and vision in its own right to be considered art.

It’s far too obsessed with nostalgia

But your entire read on what gets to qualify AS Star Wars seems inherently rooted in nostalgia. Its your reluctance to allow for other voices aside from Lucas’ that is dominant in your view as to why things might not be “good” Star Wars or “bad” Star Wars, but disqualified from being Star Wars at all. It’s a fundamentally unfair argument at its core, because it seeks not to critique the art on the arts terms, but redefine what art actually is so that the thing you don’t like is delegitimized as being art at all.

Lucas chose to sell his company to Disney. He chose its current President knowing she was going to have to be in control of the story once he sold the company. To suggest that everything done after the sale is being done for the sole sake of commerce, with no intent to create legitimate art that builds from what came before, isn’t a very realistic take, I don’t think. That’s not to say you have to like what was created, much like people don’t have to like the prequels, or really, ANYTHING with the words Star Wars on it.

But to suggest that post-sale Lucasfilm is no longer making Star Wars simply because you feel Lucas is being disrespected in some way… that just doesn’t make any sense to me. It dismisses out of hand all the effort, care, and time the people still at the company are putting into making these movies and shows, for the sake of protecting the feelings of a person you don’t even know and have no legitimate connection to. Again, you’re prioritizing HOW the art was made, and the hypothetical feelings of a previous contributor, over whether the art is actually doing what it was created to do.

No, I’m saying you cannot take somebody else’s art, tweak it a bit, and then claim you’re being artistic. I think the standard should be a little higher than that, no matter how entertaining the movies are. I’ve long since considered the ST to be an adaptation of the OT, an OT for the new generation. However, in my view the ST lacks the style, voice, vision, and cohesion for it to be considered an artistic endeavour in the vain of Kubrick’s adaptions of well known books, whilst adding his own unique style, voice, and perspective.

pleasehello said:

RogueLeader said:

I think that is a fair view, basically an auteur theory perspective.

So, do you think it is possible for future films/shows made under Disney-Lucasfilm could be considered more artistic if the right artist came in and had enough creative freedom to create a unique, new story?

Isn’t that what Rian Johnson tried to do? RJ may be the most “auteur” of any director to helm a Star Wars movie; he did something quite different and people hated it.

He did something unique from a certain point of view, by assessing what people expect, and then doing the opposite, but isn’t the negative image of the OT not still the OT in a sense?

DrDre said:

You can get something good out of a drink, that isn’t coca cola. Like I said it may taste good, and I may enjoy it, but it isn’t Coca Cola. To me Star Wars is more than the sum of a brand name, a good story, and similar aesthetics.

Dre - You seem to know what doesn’t constitute “Star Wars” in your own personal view. But what does? You’ve implied that Star Wars is more that just a sum of its parts; something more intangible. How can a SW movie ever be made to your satisfaction if that’s the case?

Well for me Lucas’ story is precisely that, Lucas’ story. If your going to expand on it, I feel you must stay true to his vision, and intentions. Now, if they create a completely new story in that universe with new characters, it’s a different matter. I think it would still need to somehow introduce a unique style, and voice to be considered a work of art in its own right, but I would not say it’s impossible.

RogueLeader said:

I think that is a fair view, basically an auteur theory perspective.

So, do you think it is possible for future films/shows made under Disney-Lucasfilm could be considered more artistic if the right artist came in and had enough creative freedom to create a unique, new story?

Yes, I think if the right artist comes along that truly adds something unique to the tapistry, that shares enough elements with Star Wars to be considered part of that universe, whilst introducing elements, and nuances, that make it truly stand on its own, than that to me would be art. People would essentially be saying, this would still be equally great, unique, and inspiring, even if it didn’t carry the name Star Wars.

RogueLeader said:

This gets into a big philosophical question but Star Wars is simultaneously both a work of art and a product. George wanted to tell interesting stories while simultaneously selling toys. That’s clear from the beginning, when Lucas bargained for full merchandising rights for the first film, which continued into the other films (what is that Lucas quote about Ewoks and Benji?) as well as the prequels. So are you saying the new films are more product and less art than George’s films, which were more art and less product? I think that’s splitting hairs, and a bit unfair to the new storytellers who might being in fact trying to tell interesting stories despite it still being a product.

Star Wars was always both art, and product before Lucas sold his company, but the only thing that was sold was the product, and the brand, not the artistry. Art, and the artist in my view are always indelibly connected. There’s a uniqueness, and style to art that flows directly from the artist. The current creators attempt to emulate that style, but uniqueness is not really part of the equation, because the brand has to stay recognizable. Now, it may be possible to do something truly unique within this universe, or add some style, that separates it enough from Lucas’ work, that it would be considered a true work of art in its own right, like Kubrick’s adaptation of the Shining, or Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings (you will note, that this is often in another medium, that the original work the more modern artist adapts), however the ST to me at least doesn’t fall into this category. It’s far too obsessed with nostalgia, and recycling Lucas’ work to be considered art in my view. Disney is a cover band playing Lucas’ songs with some updated arrangements, but they’ve yet to release a truly original song, that manages to incorporate elements of Lucas’ work, whilst also having a unique voice of its own, that touches us in a way we didn’t know was possible. True art resonates with us, because it touches us in ways we never expected, not because it reminds us of how a past work of art resonated with us.

Broom Kid said:

Even if we pursue this Coca-Cola analogy, the recipe for coke as it currently stands isn’t the same as it was when Coke was invented. Coca Cola isn’t Coca Cola anymore either. Things change and evolve and those evolutions tend to be accepted for what they are and the definition of what a thing is (and can be) get expanded accordingly.

For the purposes of this comparison, Coca Cola is still, like Star Wars, about 95% the same thing it always was. There are changes and differences. Your argument falls apart because it needs for there to be the idea that only the name has survived, and everything else that makes up its substance has been jettisoned and replaced, and that’s a pretty alarmist and inaccurate representation of Star Wars and the Sequel Trilogy’s contributions to it.

You’re essentially saying you care more about how a thing is made then whether it’s made well.

The idea that the stories aren’t being executed well and are failing or succeeding on their own merits, I have no problem with that. It’s pretty much the point of interacting with art - you judge the works based on how they worked or didn’t ON YOU. But when your interaction with art tends to hinge more on things like “what brush did they use” “whose canvas is that” “where did they source the paints from” and less on “how did this make me feel” then I feel like you’re not really giving the art itself a chance to work, because you’re more concerned (or distracted) with the trivia behind its creation than you are experiencing the ideas its trying to communicate.

No, I’m saying I care about whether it is made well, who made it, and how it fits with what has been previously established. I think the word art is thrown around much too easily. Lucas created something, that by most standards would be considered unique, and original. It is instantly recognizable, and it resonated with a lot of people. Lucas is the main artist, and creative force behind it, and Star Wars is his work of art. Taking somebody else’s work of art, and mass producing it with some tweaks to me isn’t artistry, no matter how well it’s made. It’s at best a good product, that involves storytelling, and craftmanship, that can be admired, and enjoyed, but art to me is on a whole other level.

Broom Kid said:

But Star Wars isn’t a soft drink. It’s a story with multiple authors created in a highly collaborative medium. And the quality of that story and the execution in its telling is leagues more important to me than whatever concerns there may or may not be regarding the notion of proper respects being paid to a person I literally don’t know, have never met, and am completely unfamiliar with in the way they think, feel, and operate as people. It’s literally none of my business, really. The only thing that IS my business is how the story, whoever created and executed it, resonates with me.

If JJ Abrams and Chris Terrio, with the help of John Williams, the actors, cinematographer, editors, and myriad other storytellers and technicians (who are storytellers in their own right) come together to realize a way to recontextualize the prophecy for the ST, and it works, I’m not going to discount that effort and successful execution because I think that maybe George Lucas could possibly consider it “disrespectful” to him. That doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t get anything good out of that.

You can get something good out of a drink, that isn’t coca cola. Like I said it may taste good, and I may enjoy it, but it isn’t Coca Cola. To me Star Wars is more than the sum of a brand name, a good story, and similar aesthetics.

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:

I don’t really agree, since Lucas is more than just "a previous storyteller, and I think the creator of this universe has a special place. In other words if major changes are made to the context of his story, I think he should be oke with it.

I value the story’s quality over the hypothetical hurt feelings of one of its previous contributors. I don’t understand the unnecessary complicating of enjoying the story itself by introducing this metatextual and behind-the-scenes drama to the proceedings and then hinging your ability to enjoy what happened to it. There’s no reason for me to put that skin in the game, I don’t get anything extra by doing so.

The second he sold the whole thing for four billion to a completely separate corporate entity, his feelings became a tertiary concern at best. It speaks well to people at Lucasfilm that they’re still involving him, despite prior complications and hurt feelings. But if he’s fine enough with still hanging around and helping when they ask, that should probably be all there is to it from my perspective.

Again: That’s part of why stories are so amazing. Their malleability, their freedom to change shape in order to get across the ideas and feelings of the people telling them. That’s a huge part of why the fan edit community has such an important place here, too. The consideration for other creator’s feelings isn’t taken into account too much, and I don’t know that it should be, because the aim isn’t to make prior creators thrilled or happy, it’s to try and figure out how to make the story work to express the ideas YOU want it to.

Well for me Star Wars and Lucas are indelibly linked, far beyond any monetary concerns. A good story with the Star Wars name attached to it isn’t automatically Star Wars for me, particulary if it doesn’t stay true to the spirit, and the intent of its original creator. If the new owners of the Coca Cola company alter the recipe, it isn’t Coca Cola, just because they slap a name on it, that they paid a gazillion dollars for. Coca Cola is that taste, and recipe, not any drink with the name attached to it, no matter how good it tastes.

Broom Kid said:

I think the question of “respect” for prior entries is kind of academic, or at least beside the point, much in the same way that authorial intent is mostly for nitpicking arguments after the fact and not really relevant to the actual consumption of the art in question.

If the story works and is given punch and emotional import as a result of recontextualizing (whether that recontextualizing is “disrespectful” or not) then that’s a positive, so far as I’m concerned. James Cameron recontextualizing the xenomorph as a giant bug colony could be argued as a “disrespectful” move considering the lovecraftian origins and nature of the creature in Alien, but most people don’t really pursue that line of thought because it doesn’t really matter whether it was or not when you’re watching the movie. Does that storytelling decision work for the movie? If so, then it’s a good call.

If the “Prophecy of the one who will bring Balance to the Force” ends up being reinterpreted (after being more or less invented as a way to recontextualize the OT in the first place) for the sake of making the Sequel Trilogy better overall, I have no problems with it at all. I don’t really care if it can be read as “disrespectful” to previous storytellers or corporate ownership. That’s not really a concern of mine, especially since I don’t work there, and I’m not one of the creators in question. But if that recontextualization doesn’t work within the story, THEN I have a problem with it.

The prophecy is like any other fictional element being used in the pursuit of expressing thematic ideas through story: If you can change it to make it work for what you’re trying to say, then change it. That’s the whole point of fiction. It’s inherently malleable. So fold, spindle, and mutilate as needed.

I don’t really agree, since Lucas is more than just “a previous storyteller”, and I think the creator of this universe has a special place. In other words if major changes are made to the context of his story, I think he should be oke with it.

NeverarGreat said:

Okay, I’m going to jump back into this thread for a minute because this prophecy angle could actually be really interesting.

If Palpatine survives ROTJ as it has been established, then Anakin never fulfilled the prophecy at all. This actually makes the prequels more interesting to me, since the old Jedi Order was right to be mistrusful of believing the prophecy and right to deny him training (at least at first).

Furthermore, if the prophecy is unfulfilled after ROTJ then TFA’s first lines of dialogue make a lot more sense ‘I have seen too much to ignore the despair in the galaxy. Without the Jedi, there can be no balance in the Force.’ If the Force was ‘in balance’ at the end of ROTJ due to Anakin’s sacrifice, it would have had to fall out of balance at some point, but we are never given any definitive point at which that happened. Much better in my opinion to simply have the Force out of balance for all of this time, since the re-establishment of ‘balance’ would end the story full stop.

Finally, if Anakin didn’t destroy the Sith then there’s a good argument that he’s not the subject of the prophecy, freeing it up to apply to someone else. And this is where Episode 9 could really shine, by dethroning Anakin as the chosen one and elevating someone else (presumably Rey but maybe Kylo or Luke).

That doesn’t sound very respectful to Lucas’ story though, unless he intended such a direction for the ST.

Hal 9000 said:

At this point I hope the tail doesn’t wag the dog; I hope they craft a fitting end to the trilogy as it is by this point, rather than moving away from their trajectory in paranoid reaction to perceived backlash.
I do wonder to what degree Palpatine is the sincere (potentially planned all along) conclusion of the story that’s developed, or corporate decision in reaction to what was done with TLJ.

Well considering the return of Palpatine would have been the ultimate cliffhanger for TLJ, and the first hint for his return was in a trailer for this film, which clearly indicates, they don’t consider it some big reveal in TROS, I would say it wasn’t planned at all.

My opening prediction is 180. 😃

SilverWook said:

Unless there’s another version out there, the one I’ve seen is so fuzzy it’s hard to say if Palpy is in the flesh or not. The fakes of Kylo a year or so back at an unknown location looked better than this.

I think a lot of people here are refusing to see the obvious, and hoping for the moon. Both the trailer, and the leaked images of the last few days have confirmed many of the plot leaks, that have been going around for a while now. Palpatine is back in the flesh. He’s hooked up to some machine early in the film, as seen in the trailer, and foretold by the leaks months before the trailer was released:

A lot of people don’t want to believe Palpatine is back, because it doesn’t make much sense from the perspective of ROTJ, and I get it, but I think the nay sayers should be prepared for a dose of disappointment, and hope for a good explanation in the film for Palpatine’s return.

TavorX said:

Darth Hade said:
But I don’t see how Palpatine being back can even be a question at this point as he clearly has his body in the trailer at the 54 second mark and the 1 minute; 58 second mark.

Maybe I’m just wearing a helmet with my blast shield down, but where is his body at the 54 sec mark? I only see his throne.

Regarding the general Palpatine talk, I also think RogueLeader’s take on why there’s more, supposed, physical shots of Palpatine makes sense.

But I still don’t think there’s concrete solidification that he is returning in the flesh, for the present timeline of events that will happen in the film. Sure yes there is… what we assume to be him floating with Rey nearby, but we all know what trickery these trailers can show. We assume it’s Palpatine… but if it really was, and the trailer knows that we know… wouldn’t the trailer show his face? Instead, we’re being shown a small angle of some dark hooded figure. Must be hiding something less obvious than what we think who it is, maybe.

And who knows, maybe they did shoot more scenes with Ian. It could be flashback kind of story stuff; that Sithy throne could be from ancient times. It couldn’t be on Endor or the destroyed ruins of the Death Star II, or any other random Imperial ship. I mean, it could… but it looks less likely to be tied to any of those locations. More so, like I said, attached to a flashback/back story to Palpatine/Sith stuff, y’know?

There’s a leaked photo going around, that clearly shows Palpatine in the flesh interacting with Rey, so there’s no doubt that he’s back in physical form, and not some flashback.

The icons for the saga films have changed:

Hillarious!!! George Lucas reacts to the TROS trailer (Deepfake):

https://youtu.be/_MuxVqB3I7E

GigoloJoe said:

I hate to be a naysayer, but I’ve found these grades to have a somewhat unnatural colour pallete. It’s common in digital grading - the skin tones have a sort of apricot hue and you can’t unsee it. Having said that - it’s much better that you’ve brought the levels up and boosted contrast as the 4K83 was far too flat to begin with. The latest 1.3 minimal DNR is much improved in this respect, and retains more accurate colours.

I personally feel the skin tones on many of these releases are unnaturally pink, but we all have our preferences.

UncutIsSuperior said:

Hello. Is this tool compatible with MacOS? The only laptop I have at the moment is a MacBook Air and I am wanting to make an Ultimate Edition of the Star Wars saga with this tool, complete with some scenes that were cut from each film. Thank you.

No, sadly it is only compatible with Windows at this time.

Here are two sets of frames from the Rancor scene:

Here’s an update of my color grading for the future 4k80, which will also serve as a reference for a bluray regrade:

Thanks for the vote of confidence! Here’s a larger set of comparisons between Sanjuro’s color grading, and the latest update of my own.

Sanjuro set 1:

DrDre set 1:

Sanjuro set 2:

DrDre set 2:

Sanjuro set 3:

DrDre set 3:

Sanjuro set 4:

DrDre set 4:

RogueLeader said:

Hey man! Happy to hear you enjoyed it some more in your most recent viewing! Hope your day is going well.

Do you think you just enjoyed it more in a general sense, or were there specific things that you noticed you kinda liked this time around?

I found I really enjoyed the Luke/Rey/Kylo/Snoke dynamic this time round.

yotsuya said:
But, he sold it outright and put Kennedy in charge so he clearly didn’t want any part of the development process. So it really is his own fault.

That is not true. Iger’s book makes it clear, that Lucas wanted to keep creative control after the sale, but Disney would not give it to him for understandable reasons. The fact that Disney chose to buy his treatments gave him some peace of mind, as he clearly believed, that at least the saga would be continued on the basis of his ideas, but when that didn’t happen, he was obviously very disappointed to the point, that he initially didn’t want to come to the premiere of TFA, and only showed up after Bob Iger convinced him to do so.

Anchorhead said:

DrDre said:

‘There’s nothing new,’ he said. In each of the films in the original trilogy, it was important to him to present new worlds, new stories, new characters, and new technologies. In this one, he said, ‘There weren’t enough visual or technical leaps forward.’

That’s laughable - and typical Lucas. He shrunk the Galaxy Far Far Away into the Solar System Far Far Away by having everyone end up being related to each other. Not a new story, just more of the same one. New characters? He milked Bobba Fett. New technologies‽ He rolled out a second Death Star!

1. In the interest of disclosure; I’m not familiar with the prequels beyond seeing Phantom once and screen-grabs of scenes from the other two. I just havent seen much beyond video game quality rehashes and spinning colors. I may be way off on the two prequels I’ve never seen.

2. While there’s no denying The Force Awakens mirrors the same structure as Star Wars, it at least matches visually and has a bigger Death Star.

One of the criticisms against the PT was, that it was visually too distinct from the OT, particulary after Lucas decided to go fully digital filmmaker with AOTC. You might argue Lucas cared more for the new technology than consistency with the previous movies, which to him were less than he had hoped for, due to technical limitations. So, I think Lucas for better or for worse was always interested in moving the envelope technically. Additionally I would argue Lucas introduced a whole host of new worlds, and environments in the PT, and certainly greatly expanded the visual language of the Star Wars universe through highly diverse designs, even if they didn’t always translate very well to the big screen.