logo Sign In

zombie84

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Nov-2005
Last activity
12-Jan-2024
Posts
3,557

Post History

Post
#259451
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259451/action/topic#259451
Time
80% is not a "bitter fanboy" exagerration, its a reasonable estimation. If you think thats a ridiculous number, i suggest you actually research what has been updated in the SE; I'm sure the figure is more like 70% or so when you account for the fly-by insert shots that take up a few frames, but its a reasonably accurate number.

And no, this is not about models versus CG, SE versus OOT or any of that stuff--I've noticed that such bitter, pro-Lucas resentment is a reflection of the mindset of the poster who views everything as an attack against LFL. My point was that its ironic and a damned shame that a book that chronicles the breakthrough model work is reinforced by a film that doesn't even contain the pinnacle examples of said modelwork breakthrough, and that it is another example of the Lucasfilm conspiracy to suppress the OOT--these are all facts, not opinion. LFL does not make or lend out OOT prints, only the SE, and it is indeed illogical that the film being screened doesn't even contain most of the shots but CG replacements. Its fucking stupid and i cant see why anyone would be so fucking deluded as to argue otherwise.
Post
#259199
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/259199/action/topic#259199
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
80% of the models have been deleted?

Man you guys are so angry you don't even need real reasons anymore. You guys see a news bit about SW, and make up crap until it's further proof that Lucas sucks.

Most of Lorne Peterson's stuff is still in there actually.

I'm sure Lorne Peterson didn't have a problem with Lucas making Star Wars better.



Go-mer, how many model shots remain in the battle of Yavin? I can count them on one hand. The vast majority of ILM's work was for that scene, and even in other instances (ie Millenium Falcon) the models have been replaced. The only major model sequences left is the Blockade Runner and the "here they come" sequence, which are both very simply and brief.
Post
#258949
Topic
ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258949/action/topic#258949
Time
In a latest bit of bullshit OOT-suppression, the American Cinemateque is screening Star Wars with Lorne Peterson, who was one of the chief modelmakers on the film and was responsible for many of the incredible craftsmanship and innovations the films created. Peterson will introduce the film and then be signing autographs for his new book on the ILM Modelshop, tracing the renowned modelshops early days in the 1970's and 80's.

But the Special Edition is being screened. Roughly 80% of the original groundbreaking, Oscar-winning modelwork is deleted.


Does this not bother anyone?

I am guessing the reason is because Lucasfilm has recalled all prints of the original 1977 ANH and does not lend out the OOT anymore--only the SE prints may be screened. I remember a similar incident where a university wanted to screen the film as part of its 1970's cinema classics class and only were offered the 1997 SE. The OOT dies a little once more.
Post
#258573
Topic
Question about Outtake/Unused Star Wars Music...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258573/action/topic#258573
Time
I'm pretty sure its on the 1997 SE 2-disk set. ESB had a lot of really good music cues that were wisely taken out of the film by Irvin Kershner after being scored because he felt that the dramatic tension worked best without them. The probe droids entrance at the opening had a more bombastic cue, there was music during the imperial walkers first being spotted, music during Luke and Vaders final duel and music during some of the dagobah scenes. I am guessing it is from one of these cues. The music is actually very well done, and the scenes still play well with the music in them, just in a different way from what Kershner got in the final film with a silent background.
Post
#258459
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258459/action/topic#258459
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
Originally posted by: zombie84
Star Wars was filmed on Panavision Platinums by a top-notch crew. Panavision Platinum's are the most rock-solidly registered cameras that you can buy--the film literally does not move.....

....And the GOUT weave is not just the slight weave created through less-than-steller camera gate registration--its very pronounced, and obviously due to factors in the equipment made to telecine it. These factors may include human error, poor print conidition and poor equipment used. Perhaps because it was from the 1985 IP the print already had lots of weave built into the print itself since it is third generation to begin with, faults which were then built upon by the actual 1993 telecine.


So....the camera equipment they used in 1975/76 was great, but the telecine equipment they used in 1993 was crap?

How come nobody complained about the gate weave when the DC/Faces laserdiscs came out?


In that case--and i suppose this case as well--the gate weave issue is secondary to the wretched DVNR smearing, which indeed has had numerous complaints levelled against it, which is why its not used anymore. Back in 1993, of course, the gate weave was of a level deemed acceptable and was about the norm, especially for older films where print damage adds more shakiness. Thats like saying "how come people didn't complain about the poor res in 1993?" All the flaws of the GOUT were of a level of acceptability for 1993, but in 2006 for a product of such high esteem as this its a professional embarrasment as far as I'm concerned.

Personally i would be able to put up with the level of weave if it wasn't for the overall poor resolution and DVNR--we could always try our own stabilising efforts, although the level of weave seen on the GOUT is probably at a level that would be difficult to totally elminate.
Post
#258170
Topic
Final Consensus On 2006 OOT
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258170/action/topic#258170
Time
The final consensus is that while they are marginally better than most bootlegs, and practically identical to the highest quality bootlegs (ie Moth3r PAL), the absurd price, extremely high grain level, gate weave, and all the artifacts and flaws of the original Laserdisk transfer that are still inherant (ie DVNR), make it a very dodgy release that although it is pleasing to some, it is so only out of the desperation for anything better than a Laserdisk rip (which this very nearly is).
Post
#258030
Topic
R.I.P. Robert Altman
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258030/action/topic#258030
Time
Sad news indeed. I found out when the AD announced it on set this afternoon and there was a collective sigh from everyone in the room--he really was a force in film history and strongly affected both audiences and filmmakers alike. I regret that i have not seen very many of his films--perhaps this would be a good time to do so.
Post
#258029
Topic
Question about the Prequels
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/258029/action/topic#258029
Time
The difference is that TF.N is not a prequel webiste, or a SE website. It is supposed to be a site dedicated to all the diverse aspects of the star wars universe, which is why they have specific forums for gaming, EU, prequels, OT, and one for I-VI Saga discussions, plus many miscellaneous forums. They are supposed to be a neutral stance.
The sever slant towards non-criticism of GL and the Star Wars film i think primarly has to do with the fact that they are closely affiliated with the official Star Wars website and LFL. Lucasfilm helps sponser them, and frequently supplies them with exlusive deals and offers--in fact the current online director of the official site used to be a TFN webmaster. As well, LFL has never issued any lawsuites against TFN, despite the many spy reportrs and unauthorized used of pre-release pics and information from the PT days. As such, TFN has been towing the company line for some time now, but the most aggrevating thing of all is that they have allowed the forum enforcers who control the boards to be people who not only tow the company line but who genuinely believe in it. Personally, i find little distinction between TFN and the official star wars site, and if you visit the boards of each of them they are controlled and moderatted in pretty much the same way.
Post
#257764
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257764/action/topic#257764
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
Originally posted by: zombie84


No, gate weave is not part of the film--its a by-product of the projection stage, and its visibility is dependent on human and technological factors, including how well the film is threaded through the projector and how well the projector is built. On lower budgeted formats and projectors there will be some slight weave--ie, 16mm film only has one perf for frame--but it should never be visible. In fact, the most essentially testing phase of the camera prep before a crew shoots a movie is called a registration test, and its the first thing that is done in order to eliminate gate weave being built into the film by making sure that the movement of the camera gate is rock-solid.
Inevitably, when you see a movie in theaters there will be some very minor weave that is only noticeable if you look for it--this has to do with the fact that you are seeing less than ideal prints that are getting a bit banged up, and run by a projectionist that likely is not doing his job to the best of his ability because its just a mutiplex screening that gets done ten times a day. However, if you were to watch a carefully made and thoroughly examined transfer on dvd, you will notice that gate weave is totally absent--in fact, many now use stabalising filters to eliminate even the most subtle of weave to make sure that the image is perfectly still and natural, as it should be.
I don't agree. The "stabilizing" filters you speak of are not part of the usual film process, which is why such tampering is sometimes criticized by videophiles. Like I said, I personally don't have a preference, but many videophiles dislike anything that deviates from the movie theater-like experience.

Even waaaaaay back in the dark ages (1993) I'm sure they knew how to properly load the film into the telecine (if their fingers weren't too scabbed up from their knuckles dragging on the ground) and the transfer was state-of-the-art at the time, with plenty of $$$ to buy top-notch telecine equipment (even by today's standards), and I'm sure they did a much better job than the average projectionist at today's local multiplex. The quality issue I think resides not with the telecine process itself (or the equipment used) - but with the fact that the resulting masters were made for a much lower-resolution medium (laserdisk).

Your quarrel seems not so much to be with the exessive gate weave you perceive, but with the film medium itself. I'm guessing you would prefer that all movies were shot digitally, completely devoid of film-related anomalies?

Seeing a movie in a theater is still the zenith that every home-theater buff strives for- and yet movie theaters still use plain-old 35mm film and (*gasp!*) projectors, WITHOUT "stabilizing filters", and WITH sometimes inexperienced projectionists with heavily-used prints and projectors. I wonder why it is that so many are willing to accept a bit of gate weave in a movie theater, but not at home?

In any case, I didn't mean to create acrimony. You see excessive gate weave- I don't. I only see aliasing (in SW- not as much in the other 2) in non-anamorphic DVDs. Guess I'm the lucky one then?



I speak as a professional motion picture camera assistant who works almost exclusively in film. I am the one doing the registration tests at Panavision Toronto and loading the camera magazines onto the Panaflex Milleniums that shoot the actual movies. And although, yes, occassionally you will see the slightest and almost invisible traces of gate movement on some lower-cost equipment (ie. older camera such as the Arri BL3 35mm model or the Arri BL 16 16mm model), gate weave is pretty much completely absent. Gate weave occassionally gets intoduced in the reproduction stages--perhaps the making of the IP results in a few frames wobbling as they are scanned, and then the IN might introduce a few more frames of wobble, and then the print itself another few and then the telecine a few more; even these on a modern scanner don't add up to anything really noticeable, but just to be perfect, this is why sometimes stabilising filters are now being used--they return the film to its original condition, free of any wobble.

Star Wars was filmed on Panavision Platinums by a top-notch crew. Panavision Platinum's are the most rock-solidly registered cameras that you can buy--the film literally does not move. If you have ever opened up the body of one of these things, the film is threaded through teeth and gears and registration pins over ten times--and just to make sure, a registration test is done in the prep stage as well. That image isn't going to move a millimeter in the gate.

Just as burn marks, scratches and dupe grain are not part of the original image and are taken with the best efforts to eliminate, gate weave is also a foreign element to film. Perhaps it re-creates the shoddy theatrical experience of watching it with a sub-par projector, but its not part of the film. And the GOUT weave is not just the slight weave created through less-than-steller camera gate registration--its very pronounced, and obviously due to factors in the equipment made to telecine it. These factors may include human error, poor print conidition and poor equipment used. Perhaps because it was from the 1985 IP the print already had lots of weave built into the print itself since it is third generation to begin with, faults which were then built upon by the actual 1993 telecine.
Post
#257755
Topic
A New Hope HDTV screenshots
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257755/action/topic#257755
Time
Originally posted by: vtpeters
Can someone please tell me why everyone here is so thrilled to see these 1997 SE versions in HD? They're by general knowledge the worst-of-all Star Wars versions ever, so why bother?

And as far as adapting new standards goes. Personally I'd first have to see the electronics and entertainment industry together support only ONE system. I'm not going to invest (heavily) into a system that could become the next Video2000 or Betamax (for all you youngsters: these were rival and some may say technically superior video tape systems to VHS in the late 80's and early 90's).


Its just exciting to see Star Wars in HD--in the same way that seeing the SE's on the big screen again, while sucky in one sense, would still be thrilling.

As for format wars, this is not an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray release, its a high definition television broadcast. No doubt it will be put onto on an HD format at some point, but i think by the time that happens (circa 2009/2010) the format war will have hopefully be decided.
Post
#257607
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257607/action/topic#257607
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
Originally posted by: lordjedi

I snipped most of it because I've read it before and didn't feel the need to requote everything. All I can say is that I've honestly never seen gate weave to that extent on any other DVD I own. It may be there, but I've never noticed it. I also didn't have to have it pointed out to me on this release. As soon as I started up a sample, I saw it. I honestly couldn't believe my eyes. It was like someone was shaking my monitor. I don't have any other DVDs that do this.

I've also never seen this happen at a theater during any movie. I've noticed a slight shake in the beginning on some films, but never to this extent. Again, it was like someone was shaking the monitor.

If that's something that can be corrected, as zombie said it was, then again, there is no reason to release a DVD like that in 2006.
Originally posted by: zombie84
Gate weave is most definitly not part of the film. If you see Casino Royale and it is shaking all over the place--that means the projectionist is a fucking moron and hasn't threaded the film correctly. Watch another film on DVD? Do you see gate weave? Probably not. Gate weave is an artifical flaw introduced in the projection stage due to inadequete equipment. In the case of the GOUT, its a flaw created through the piece of shit transfer--the 1993 telecine didn't hold the film steady as it passed through the scanner, and so the image wobbles. A modern scan would yield a rock-solid image--such as the 2004 dvd.

And yes, the gate weave on the GOUT is pretty bad. Older movies and older telecines had more noticeable gate weave but this problem has been mostly overcome in recent years, although you still see a telecine from time to time (the dvd of Troy is hidious and features many video exposure flaws as well as lots of gate weave).


I'm sorry but gate weave IS part of the film. It is part of the process of a strip of film running through a projector, and the slight side-to-side movement that occurs as the sprocket holes for each frame are taken up.

Perhaps you are watching the DVDs on your computer and sitting too close to the screen? Like I said before, if you LOOK for gate weave, you will see it. And yes, you will usually see it at the beginning of a film because it is more noticeable when you are reading text- it's still there during the rest of the film- it's just not as apparent.

Try sitting further away from your screen I think you'll be surprised at how the gate weave appears to lessen.

I think it hurts our cause to complain about flaws that aren't flaws. There are so many other flaws to complain about- the non-anamorphic issue being the biggest, the aliasing being 2nd.....I can understand how others brush us off as fanatics, when we start complaining about gate weave, film grain, color breathing and other issues inherent of motion picture film.

But again- that's just my 2 cents. Do as you will.


No, gate weave is not part of the film--its a by-product of the projection stage, and its visibility is dependent on human and technological factors, including how well the film is threaded through the projector and how well the projector is built. On lower budgeted formats and projectors there will be some slight weave--ie, 16mm film only has one perf for frame--but it should never be visible. In fact, the most essentially testing phase of the camera prep before a crew shoots a movie is called a registration test, and its the first thing that is done in order to eliminate gate weave being built into the film by making sure that the movement of the camera gate is rock-solid.
Inevitably, when you see a movie in theaters there will be some very minor weave that is only noticeable if you look for it--this has to do with the fact that you are seeing less than ideal prints that are getting a bit banged up, and run by a projectionist that likely is not doing his job to the best of his ability because its just a mutiplex screening that gets done ten times a day. However, if you were to watch a carefully made and thoroughly examined transfer on dvd, you will notice that gate weave is totally absent--in fact, many now use stabalising filters to eliminate even the most subtle of weave to make sure that the image is perfectly still and natural, as it should be.

The GOUT has very bad gate weave that is definitely meritting complaint. However, when you realise it is from a 1993 transfer, this suddenly makes more sense, as the technology back then was not as painstaking as it is now. Unfortunately for Lucasfilm they chose to present a 1993 transfer in 2006 so they get what is coming.
Post
#257534
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257534/action/topic#257534
Time
Originally posted by: Mielr
Originally posted by: lordjedi

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicLast night I popped in Star Wars on my PC and got fairly close to the monitor. I can certainly see what you guys are saying about the resolution and the jaggy lines and the graineyness. But at the same time I think the colors and general sharpness is pretty good. One thing I love the most about this release is the way you get the image instability. To me that instantly nails that feeling I had watching the originals in the theater, where it all looks so real, but has that twitch to it that your brain adjusts to, but still gives you that slight feeling like you are hallucinating or something. Like this "reality" is slightly off the tracks.


Dude, the "image instability" is the worst thing about this release. Based on what I've seen, that shake is very noticable and just nasty. I really don't want to feel like I'm hallucinating when I watch Star Wars. I want to be drawn into the movie. That shake completely drops me out of the movie it's so noticeable. Not to mention all the scratches and other things I notice.

lordjedi, I've agreed with most of what you've said so far, but I have to disagree with you here. The "image instability" Go-mer referred to is just gate weave, which is not generally considered to be a flaw. It's an inherent part of the film process- if you go to see Casino Royale in a theater today, you will also see gate weave (if you look for it- generally, if you don't seek it out- you won't notice it). You will also see gate weave on at least 90% of all DVDs released today (most noticeable during the opening and ending credits). Any film that is run through a projector or a telecine, will have some gate weave. Only films that have been scanned frame-by-frame for DVD release will not have it. Most DVD movies have not been scanned this way, because the process is more expensive than using a telecine. However, just because a telecine has been used to make a DVD transfer doesn't mean that the transfer can't be excellent. In fact, there are some who are critical of using the scanning process because they feel it makes the transfer look more like video than film. Personally, I don't really have a preference either way.

These DVDs do have flaws and the true flaws do deserve criticism, but I don't think it's fair to criticise them for something that technically is not a flaw. I don't know if you've watched all three of the DVDs in their entirety, but I've watched all three of them 2 or 3 times each so far, and to me, the gate weave is no worse than on any other DVD I have, or any movie I've seen theatrically. In fact, they're better than some DVDs I have (ie-the Rocky Horror 25th Anniversary DVD has some scenes where the gate weave is far more apparent).

Anyhow, just my 2 cents.



Gate weave is most definitly not part of the film. If you see Casino Royale and it is shaking all over the place--that means the projectionist is a fucking moron and hasn't threaded the film correctly. Watch another film on DVD? Do you see gate weave? Probably not. Gate weave is an artifical flaw introduced in the projection stage due to inadequete equipment. In the case of the GOUT, its a flaw created through the piece of shit transfer--the 1993 telecine didn't hold the film steady as it passed through the scanner, and so the image wobbles. A modern scan would yield a rock-solid image--such as the 2004 dvd.

And yes, the gate weave on the GOUT is pretty bad. Older movies and older telecines had more noticeable gate weave but this problem has been mostly overcome in recent years, although you still see a telecine from time to time (the dvd of Troy is hidious and features many video exposure flaws as well as lots of gate weave).
Post
#257526
Topic
Question about the Prequels
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257526/action/topic#257526
Time
You don't have to feel bad about liking the prequels, just because they are disliked by a great many. Hell, i love some really "bad" movies that lots of people dislike--for one reason or another, they just work for me. But realise that your opinion is in the minority. I think anyone with any sense can admit that the prequels have a lot of faults; they also have a lot of good moments in them. The question then becomes, do the faults overpower the good? Well, the majority opinion is that yes they do, but some, such as yourself, feel that the good overpowers the faults. Well, good for you. You don't have to feel bad about that or feel the need to prove the validity of your opinion. Watch the prequels and enjoy them. But realise that this particular website is filled with people that almost exclusively have the opposite opinion of you--so if you want to post that opinion, be prepared for a heavy refutation. If you want to post about the prequels, thats fine--i just wouldnt recommend doing it here. Theres lot of other sites that have people who love the prequels--TF.N, for example might be a decent place to post those thoughts of yours. You are free to do so here as well, just realise that there are also those here who are free to disagree with you.
Post
#257020
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/257020/action/topic#257020
Time
That Greedo explanation is bullshit. The script says that Han fires first. Then its filmed so that Han fires first. Then its edited that Han fires first. Theres never any ambiguity about it. The only thing about it was a stylistic suspense device--you see a flash of a lazer and a burst of an explosion and its cut so fast that it becomes impressionistic--then the smoke clears and Greedo is dead and Han is the last man standing. Thats how the script describes it and you can even see in the finished film that thats the way its clearly edited, and it is specifically structured that way because thats a western genre cliche that Lucas was trying to evoke. Even Gary Kurtz has recently said something to the effect of "Lucas' explanation on its filming doesn't make sense because the scene was designed and filmed with Han firing first and it would have been very easy to film it with Greedo firing first if thats what he wanted." It also would have been even easier to "fudge it editorially" as Lucas has put it. But theres only one laser blast, one laser sound, and a very clear sequence of shots showing Han blowing him away.
Post
#256526
Topic
Where do I go from here as a SW fan?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/256526/action/topic#256526
Time
Here is the thing--the market saturation of the SE/PT material does not reflect the consumer demand for it. People think that because the SE/PT incarnation of the saga is all that is ever sold that this is what people want, or what they prefer--but its not like that at all. Its simply what Lucas puts out, and people love Star Wars so much that they are willing to accept it. Our preference of the OOT is not the minority, its the majority. The only difference is that we are in a uniquely bizarre situation where the authority who controls the marketing can dictate sales strategies based on his own personal preference, and Lucas' happen to be in the minority.
Post
#255755
Topic
A New Hope HDTV screenshots
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/255755/action/topic#255755
Time
Originally posted by: JamesEightBitStar
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: JamesEightBitStar
Errr... maybe I'm blind or something, but I don't see a single darn thing that makes these screenshots look any better than the non-HD versions. Actually, I think a lot of these look just like the 2006 DVD.


Perhaps you should click on the picture to zoom them in. You most probably are not running a 1920 x-resolution.


I DID Zoom in. Dude, I'm not stupid. Blind to this quality everyone else is seeing maybe, but not stupid.

In fact right after looking at the pic with the two moons (which, when zoomed, didn't look at all detailed or pristine) I went and compared the scene to the same one on my 2006 SE DVD. Still no difference.


Then you don't have a very good eye for detail. If you were to take a cap of the DVD it would take up half as much screenspace as the HD version--the HD versions reveals fine detail that literally doesn't register on the standard-definition version. Zoom in on a dvd cap--it quickly becomes blurry and detail smudges together. An HD cap will have a much higher detail threshold before things biggin to smear together.
Post
#255727
Topic
A New Hope HDTV screenshots
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/255727/action/topic#255727
Time
As far as HD standards go these are not the best versions. I see lots of compression artifacting. Still, the sheer resolution makes visible detail that literally didn't exist in the previous SD version--I'm incredibly thrilled just to see the caps! Imagine the OOT?? I am drooling right now...

I also realise how shitty the CGI is integrated. Very out of place and fake. When i see the Jabba pic from the SE all i can think is "do they really expect audiences to buy this as real?" It just looks so cartoony and fake.
Post
#255525
Topic
Official Star Wars newsletter from 1978
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/255525/action/topic#255525
Time
Originally posted by: lordjedi
How was ESB a disaster? I know it went over budget, but didn't it also make more money than ANH? I'm sure there was the stress of making a successfull sequel, but other than that, how could any of it be considered a disaster? It was a successful sequel and it guaranteed him the ability to make another movie. If anything, I'd say that ANH was a bigger disaster. He had to redo all the FX shots when he got back from England, fire his entire FX team, and do all kinds of things with almost no time left before the release. But again, it made a ton of money, so in the grand scheme of things, even it wasn't a disaster.


It went over six weeks overschedule, the budget nearly doubled during filming, crew members were sick and injured, John Berry died during filming, Hamill hated the shoot and was the only actor on set for a month, all sorts of mechanical failures occured, ILM was pushed almost past its limits, Gary Kurtz and George Lucas was split up and Carrie Fisher was going through a heavy coke addiction at the time. It was very much a disaster in its production, even if it wasn't an elaborate disaster the way, say Apocalyse Now or Alien 3 was.
Post
#255448
Topic
Official Star Wars newsletter from 1978
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/255448/action/topic#255448
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
For one I do think a lot of the blame lies at Lucas' own feet, because he isn't the best public speaker. I don't think it's something he can help, he just isn't good at speaking publicly. So sure it's his fault for being unclear, but I think we could be a little nicer about understanding that misunderstandings can happen.

I think that when he started writing his concept for SW, it was too big, so he took part of it and made it into ANH. Then when that was successful, he started plugging more of what he originally came up with into the next two episodes of the classic trilogy, and was even at one point thinking of making the full story a 9 film cycle. But when he got to ESB/ROTJ, he suddenly realized he didn't want to spend that much of the rest of his life making SW movies, and by then he wasn't even sure he wanted to do more than 3 with all the headaches he was going through trying to make them happen, so he took the final resolution of the Emperor being vanquished and pushed it up to the 6th film.

When that happened, all the story treatments he had come up with for an eventual 3rd trilogy were rendered obsolete, because they all ended with the same resolution we got at the end of ROTJ: That the Sith had finally been vanquished. So while he had been thinking about doing a third trilogy, he had never come up with anything beyond the destruction of the Sith. To him, that's where the story ended, and he never took it further.

I also don't see the motivation for Lucas to lie. The man is the master of his own destiny and anwers to no-one. What purpose would lying about this stuff serve?

I also don't see the contradiction between Lucas saying the dark side is more powerful in the short term, because Yoda says it's quicker, easier, more seductive. That makes it more powerful in the short term, but lacking in the long term, which is pretty much what Yoda is saying too as far as I can tell.


I more or less agree with this. Lucas' lying nowadays however, is mostly due to him covering up previous lies--he claimed in the late 70's and early 80's that he had devised a 9 film saga, with full treatments, and in some Lucasfilm publicity material it even leads one to believe there are forms of scripts for these stories. What obviously happened is that he got excited about the overnight explosive success of Star Wars, and came up with the concept of a larger series, perhaps with some broad story points in mind, but not anything too specific. I think his justification of making the saga out to be some big pre-written epic at that time was that he felt pressure from the public--the film was hailed as the greatest motion picture ever made and Lucas a storytelling genius. Rather than saying he was mostly making it up as he went he put forth the image that the series was in capable and knowing hands and was following a precise, intentional blueprint devised long ago--the fact that he had genuinely developed lots of background material only encouraged this talk. Then of course the reality of shooting set in and he realised after the disaster of ESB that making a huge series was more work than it was worth, so he decided to relegate the immediate series to the contractually-bound trilogy, with a vague notion of perhaps returning to do prequels at some point in the future due to the fact that he had developed a very interesting back-story.
Post
#255189
Topic
The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/255189/action/topic#255189
Time
Well, in Lucas' defense, a common misconception regarding midichlorians is that they are the Force. A lot of people seem to think this, and its not really true. I didn't mind the midichlorians in TPM because it never really took the mystery out of what the Force is, it just explained how it can physically link to the material body of the person using. Midichlorians are conductors of the Force--the more midichlorians you have, the greater you conduction of the Force will be. The end result of course is: amount of midichlorians=amount of Force power, so it almost is like the midichlorians are the Force itself, because they might as well be.
Post
#254815
Topic
Official Star Wars newsletter from 1978
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/254815/action/topic#254815
Time
Originally posted by: ShiftyEyes
Personally, I think it's fair to say that when George Lucas created Star Wars, he had a rough story idea, more or less with basis in Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress. He tosses in some Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, and Star Wars was born. He thinks up a pretty rich (though not necessarily specific) backstory concerning the Jedi Bendu, the nature of the Force, mythical wizards, etc. Throughout the development of his script, he pares down all the backstory and we get what we know today as Star Wars (A New Hope). Lucas had intended the film to carry on in the tradition of old serials, so he envisioned a series of cliffhanger type entertainment. He tries a story treatment for the second film, perhaps bringing in more of the mythology he created (kyber crystals, etc). He eventually tosses this idea (Splinter of the Mind's Eye) and decides to continue the story in a more traditional means. The concept of The Empire Strikes Back is born. Lucas figures he could throw in a real twist and combined the Anakin and Vader characters. At this moment, he envisions a more detailed backstory (with Anakin & Obi Wan, the old Republic, plotpoints, and all, but still fairly rough) and figures he could make a prequel trilogy. He's also young and figures Star Wars could thrive as a James Bond type series, so he reasons that he could do more trilogies in the future. Around the time of Return of the Jedi, he probably gets tired of it and decides to make the third film the big finale. He ties up loose ends even if not according to the original plan for the sequels (like Leia and Luke being siblings) and puts a cap in the series for a while. Then his wife divorces him, takes half of his money, and he spends the next decade or so making it back with merchandising, producing movies, etc. He also keeps an eye on technology and when it's right (around the time of Jurassic Park), he decides to start on the prequel trilogy. While he has a rough idea of where things will go, it tortures him to write the scripts, but he eventually does it and attempts to once again wrap things up.

That's all conjecture, but I think it's reasonable considering what we know and what Lucas has said in the past.


Bingo. Thanks for the summation. Theres a lot more plans laid and plans unlaid in there (i.e in 1978 its a 12 film serial, in 1979 its a 9-episode saga, etc.) but this is the gist of what went on, as far as anyone can tell.

Post
#254758
Topic
McCallum on Jar Jar & Kids before TPM came out
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/254758/action/topic#254758
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Originally posted by: skye_solo
#2. George Lucas is an idiot.

Gotta disagree with this one. He's a genius. Anybody who could make millions (if not billions) off of Episodes II and III, both on their own merits AND after Episode I is clearly a genius. Maybe not a film genius, but certainly a genius at business. And face it, Lucas is a genius for being a self-made billionaire when half of his major catalog includes:
The Prequels
IJ & The Temple of Doom
Howard the Duck
More American Graffiti


Yes, he's a genius for the marketing plan. step one: make prequels. step two: make merchandise, in any form or quality. Step three: you are now a billionaire.

There was nothing genius about the marketing. Star Wars fans are rabid consumers for anything licensed so all Lucasfilm has to do is put out product, whatever the quality or form.