Sign In

DrDre

User Group
Members
Join date
16-Mar-2015
Last activity
10-Dec-2019
Posts
3,600

Post History

Post
#1305284
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

LexX said:

DrDre said:

Take a look at this frame:

Looking at the references I have, and being conservative with saturation I would place this shot about here:

Bottom pic looks like teal mess. Sure, the colors could pop a little more on the screenshots from the last page, but I prefer them and they look pretty filmic to me. Sure, it’s not Technicolor but it’s easily the best how these have looked officially. That 2001 pic looks a little too over-processed color-wise.

There is no overabundance of teal in the bottom shot, a little too much green perhaps. The Death Star walls are a light blue for 35mm prints. Just for comparison here’s Puggo’s preservation of the 16mm print for this shot (which has a bit more green in it than my correction):

Having seen ROTJ recently on the big screen in a private screening, I can confirm the light blue color is accurate for these scenes, even if it’s not as saturated and contrasty as seen on a 16mm copy of a 35mm source. The frame I posted is pretty close in terms of hues, I would say. Correcting the slight greenish tone I get this:

Boosting the saturation of both frames, it’s pretty clear the new 4K master is heavy on the magenta tones for this shot:

Post
#1305262
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Stotchy said:

Is this an issue caused by HDR being played on an 8 bit display? When I play any HDR Bluray on a non HDR display then the picture looks grey and dull.

Please note that my country doesn’t have Disney plus yet so I’m just going off the conversations here.

No, I have a 4K HDR display, and none of the other 4K HDR films on Disney+ have these issues. RO and TFA for example both look stunning in 4K HDR. In any case these screenshots are from the 1080p version of the films, but the 4K HDR versions look very similar.

Post
#1305260
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Oke, having reviewed the new 4K masters I see a much more detailed image with less artifacts, and so a much better source to work from for future fan restorations. However, the more I look at the colors the less I like them. The reason for this, is that this new 4K master seems to have the opposite problem of the oversaturated 2004 master, namely that the color grading for all six saga films seem to be almost devoid of color appearing almost monochrome in several scenes.

To be honest I’ve never seen 4K restorations with so little color. Just for comparison here’s a frame from the recent 4K restoration of 2001: A Space Odyssey:

Here are several shots from the Blade Runner restoration:

Post
#1305041
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

pat man said:

nl0428 said:

If anyone here went to go see the 3D release of The Phantom Menace, please tell me what the master and color grading looked like. Did it look like the 2011 Blu-ray, or this new Disney+ version?

I didn’t see the 3d release. But skimming through the movies the Prequels are just upscaled Blu-ray. I.e. nasty teal shift in Aotc.

No, they are not. The color grading is markedly different, more muted like the for the OT, and obviously HDR. I also don’t see any evidence of a blanket teal shift. There are plenty of blue skies, and white clouds in AOTC.

Post
#1304596
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:

I think the entire concept of artistic expression as you define it is meaningless, because by that definition any form of expression is art, hence nothing is art. It’s like those schools, where a student can’t fail, and everyone gets a passing grade. Anyone calls themselves an artist these days, effectively putting themselves in the leagues of a Mozart, Beethoven, Leonardo DaVinci, Stanley Kubrick, Oscar Wilde, etc, etc. It’s preposterous in my view. Making a painting doesn’t automatically make you an artist in my book, just like being able to count to ten doesn’t make you a Math Professor.

Don’t know what else to say. The question isn’t Art or Not Art. it’s Good Art or Bad Art.

This is where your argument falls apart in my view, as good or bad has very little to do with it. Good or bad is in the eye of the beholder.

Beethoven and The Prodigy are both musical artists. Daniel Johnston and Mozart. The Chainsmokers and Vivaldi. Skrillex and Johnny Cash. The entire concept of artistic expression as I defined it is how it’s defined. That doesn’t make it meaningless. Art has meaning, even the crappiest art.

The viewpoints on art have changed drastically over time, and even now there are many schools of thought, and so it’s definition isn’t as clear cut as you suggest, which is why we’re having this discussion.

And that’s where your argument about it being like a “crappy school where nobody can fail” falls apart, because being Crappy Art is BAD. Yes, you tried to express yourself via artistic intent, and you did it terribly. That’s not a good thing. You made bad art and it reflects poorly on you. “Being an artist” doesn’t shield you from having made crappy art. It didn’t protect Mapplethorpe. Or John Waters.

Again, what does good, or bad have to do with it? It’s about the definition of art, which in my view relates to a timeless quality, and influence that can only be evaluated over time. In my view a painting is just a painting, and only becomes Art when it is placed in the context of the time it was created.

That’s honestly enough. Trying to levy the charge that The Force Awakens isn’t really art AT ALL just doesn’t make any sense, and is a pretty huge overreaction, as is the decision to try and disqualify its status AS art in response. It’s obviously art. It’s okay if you don’t like it and think that it’s bad. You don’t have to go as far as you do. It’s unneccessary to make the criticisms you’re making.

Why not? I don’t even dislike TFA, but in my view TFA is a product created with the intent to cash in on the popularity of Star Wars. It’s a movie created by committee, where the movie wasn’t based on someone’s creative vision, but deliberately tailored to put bums into seats through the power of nostalgia by emulating someone else’s artistic expression.

Post
#1304564
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

Broom Kid said:

I’m simply arguing, that I don’t agree with the idea of the designation art being automatically attached to a movie like a toy in a box of cereal, simply because people put effort into it.

This is what I was trying to get at earlier. It’s more than enough to call something bad art. Loads of bad art exists. But there’s no real point in trying to disqualify bad art AS art simply because you don’t like it. That’s just being unfair and irrational. Manos: The Hands of Fate is a work of art. It’s a work of exceedingly, shockingly POOR art, but it’s an artistic expression. I understand the inclination to hyperbolically try and strip it of its legitimacy if you dislike it, i.e. every person who has ever looked at a Jackson Pollock and said “this isn’t art my 3 year old can do this hahaha” but that’s not how art (or the Force) works.

Art’s very definition isn’t like prizes at the bottom of a crackerjack box at all. And you don’t need to go so far as to attempt re-defining art (and the nature of artistic expression) simply because a movie didn’t work on you the way you’d hoped it would.

Yes, but here you make the mistake of assuming that my like or dislike for a movie has anything to do with it. It doesn’t. There are plenty of movies, that I like, that I don’t consider art, and there are plenty of movies I don’t like, that I would consider art. I just think just designating any form of expression as art, is deflating the term art. It puts some piece of fluff entertainment like a Transformers movie, a product clearly created to make a buck (not that there’s anything wrong with that) in the same league as a painting by Rembrandt.

Further: The notion of “originality” being a key aspect of artistic validity is vastly overrated. Sure, it’s wonderful when it’s present, and I appreciate its presence quite a bit, especially when the execution is realizing the potential of the newness. But the definition of “art” isn’t reserved only for “new” things, and honestly, I’d go so far as to say “originality” as people try to describe it (i.e. “something nobody’s ever seen or tried before”) is not only limiting, but a hugely unrealistic expectation to hold over any work of art as a baseline. The large preponderance of art - not just film, or television, but book, painting, music, etc. is mostly unoriginal by those criteria - and that includes Star Wars, which is mostly pastiche of pre-existing art. You could argue the pastiche is “new” but even then I don’t think that argument holds, and the most strikingly “original” aspect of it was almost entirely technical in nature. The tech was advanced to serve the art - but the art itself wasn’t really “original.”

Nor does it need to be. It’s just another example of retroactively boxing in artistic expression in order to redefine other works in relation to it, and find those other works to be wanting. It’s not very generous, and isn’t doing any favors to art, or to the movies you love.

You don’t have to disqualify something from being art in order to dislike it. You can just dislike it. Intensely even. But it’s still art. Just bad art.

I think the entire concept of artistic expression as you define it is meaningless, because by that definition any form of expression is art, hence nothing is art. It’s like those schools, where a student can’t fail, and everyone gets a passing grade. Anyone calls themselves an artist these days, effectively putting themselves in the leagues of a Mozart, Beethoven, Leonardo DaVinci, Stanley Kubrick, Oscar Wilde, etc, etc. It’s preposterous in my view. Making a painting doesn’t automatically make you an artist in my book, just like being able to count to ten doesn’t make you a Math Professor.

Post
#1304546
Topic
4K restoration on Star Wars
Time

Harmy said:

If that’s the case, which honestly, it probably is, then the quality of it seems to be pretty bad. I’ll probably be sticking to the BD for Despecialized because at least there we know what changes were made to it and the quality seems comparable, if not better.

I don’t think the quality can really be assessed from a screenshot of 4K video streaming content. A comparison would have to be made with HD streaming, which in of itself has far less detail then the bluray. The real comparison can only be made with the eventual hard copy versions, but considering the generally poor quality of the bluray, I can’t imagine it won’t be significantly better than the 2004 master, particulary since the new master doesn’t seem to have the excessive sharpening of the 2004 versions. Additionally the 10 bit colors will provide much more dynamic range to work with, compared to the black crush ridden blurays.

Post
#1304459
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

ZkinandBonez said:

DrDre said:

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.

So by that logic Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel can’t be considered art because it was comissioned by the church? Some of history’s most famous artwork could be considered “commercial” or “corporate” as they were partially, or completely, dictated and funded by one or more patrons. Even art house films exist to make money. Although I don’t dismiss auteur theory, I do think it’s highly overrated since even the smallest, most independent films are a collaborative and commercial venture.

I never stated art can’t also be commercial. I’m simply arguing, that I don’t agree with the idea of the designation art being automatically attached to a movie like a toy in a box of cereal, simply because people put effort into it. A lot of people put great effort and creativity into their work, or product, and they don’t get some automatic lofty term to describe it, so why should a product from the entertainment industry be any different? In my view there are other factors that come into play, which I’ve stated are a rare, and unique combination of imagination, creativity, originality, perserverance, circumstance, context, and timing. The Sistene Chappel has all of the above. I don’t think the ST qualifies. In my view the films lack imagination, creativity, and originality. They lack a unified creative vision, and seem content to mostly ride Lucas’ coattails. As such, I see the ST thusfar mostly as successful products, that attempt to emulate Lucas’ (and his collaborators’) most successful and beloved works. There are creative elements, but not enough for me personally to consider them works of art in their own right. To me these films thusfar are not much different from the Roman marble copies of famous bronze Greek statues. They are a different material, and it takes craft to make them, but in the end they are mainly a modernized commercial product based on somebody else’s artistry.

Post
#1304250
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

CatBus said:

IMO, the OOT has been out of circulation for all but the most devoted fans for over twenty years now. On the home video front, it’s skipped three generations of video tech, not including streaming services, where it’s also unavailable. Even old-time fans, unless they’re holding onto a VCR or a Laserdisc player, probably don’t watch it anymore – it’s only an even smaller subset that have ever viewed our preservations (I suppose there’s also the GOUT, but I don’t think that abomination set the world on fire either). And it’s not just missing, it’s been substituted with another product that some certainly think is close enough – so there’s often little sense of a gap that needs to be filled. If it ever did come back, it would be a niche product. Its clear superiority does not guarantee it will overcome decades of sentimental attachment to the only version of the films most of a generation has ever known.

For this reason, I disagree it would be like printing money for Disney. A proper restoration costs a lot, and they’d be getting stiff market competition from their own products. Furthermore, Lucas still expresses a strong desire that the OOT be suppressed, he’s widely regarded as the creator of the OOT, and studios tend to defer to the creator’s wishes for already-successful properties, even if they’re stupid wishes, and when they’re under no contractual obligation to do so. Lucas not being at the helm doesn’t mean he has no influence on the question of the OOT.

So basically IMO we’re waiting for copyright expiration and a public domain release when it comes to the OOT. A couple screenshots in a book is not a sign of the wall crumbling.

I agree. I think the best we can probably hope for, is a far superior SE release in 4K HDR, that can serve as a basis for future fan preservations.

Post
#1304011
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

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.

Post
#1304003
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

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.

Post
#1303995
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

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.

Post
#1303991
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

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.

Post
#1303985
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

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.

Post
#1303983
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

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.

Post
#1303975
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

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.

Post
#1303961
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

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.