logo Sign In

zombie84

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

Post History

Post
#405060
Topic
"The People Vs. George Lucas" documentary...
Time

ImperialFighter said:

 

But at the end of the day, that's me speaking as a huge fan of adywan's undoubted creativity, and only wishing to see his work properly acknowledged. 

Well, I think that may be the problem. It's not a promotional piece for Adywan or any of us. I don't think the filmmaker was being dismissive, but his example actually is a good one that illustrates the sub-atomic level we are willing to go to obsess over the films, which I think is the reason he was mentioning Adywan in the first place in that instance.

Post
#404912
Topic
"The People Vs. George Lucas" documentary...
Time

TV's Frink said:

To be fair, ady doesn't seem pleased...

adywan said:

yeh, i've just seen that interview. I'm not very happy with the example they agve of the "critters". This is something they never asked me about yet use it as an example in the film of how "nit-picky" i am with my edit. If they had bothered asking then i would have given them a logical explanation ( the fact that i had extended that shot so would have had to slow the creatures down, which didn't work and the fact that they look stupid turning around to watch the landspeeder) . It will be interesting to see how they twisted my interview to make me look like some obsessed fan with too much time on his hands. Has anyone seen this movie yet? I'm really starting to wish that i had never been involved with this

It's important to note WHY he only wanted two critters.

Yes, but you are missing the point--the fact that we are willing to subject the films to such scrutiny that leaving two "critters" in is meaningful is itself meaningful. It's not a documentary about Revisted, the point underlined here is that we will re-edit the films and be hyper-specific about specific elements, and that's the real significance of Revisited, that we will spend countless hours to fix things at an almost sub-atomic level.

I don't think he was saying we are bad people, or crazy for doing this. And I'm glad he wasn't putting Adywan on a pedestal of idealism. He's been uncannily neutral about it, because what's more important than whether Adywan's edits improve upon the film is the fact that he is doing them in the first place. It's not about proving to the world that such and such fix is justified for such and such reasons because its inconsistent in a later shot, or whatever. The fact we are doing it in the first place is the real significance, and that's what the filmmaker is drawing attention to, as he should be.

Post
#404851
Topic
"The People Vs. George Lucas" documentary...
Time

Guys, let's not fly off the handle here. The director makes a good point--we are nit picky. Its not that Adywan didn't like the Mos Eisely critters--its just that he wanted two, instead of five. We're that specific. And that's his point, and he's absolutely correct. We are obsessive in a way that no fan base anywhere approaches, and we are obsessive about minute details that 99.99% of people don't even think about. The documentary isn't propaganda for OT.com or OT-purists, it's a look at the fanbase and it's relationship with Lucas, and examples like these are pretty salient, that we will spend years editing our own version of the film that has instances where we didn't like the three out of the five CG creatures in the corner of the frame. I don't think it's positive or negative to point this out either, this is simply one of the features of note of our fandom.

Post
#404384
Topic
Star Wars animated series aimed for pre-schoolers a-comin' (you heard me right!)
Time

In some ways, the merchandising existed first--when he was writing Lucas always had the idea of making R2-D2 cookie jars and having action figures and such; merchandising was a key component of Forbidden Planet, Wizard of Oz, Planet of the Apes, etc., and Lucas wanted audiences to have that fun with Star Wars. But since the story didn't take shape long after Lucas started (re)writing, you might say that this merchandise vision pre-dates the version of the story that he actually started pursuing (circa late 1975).

The thing is, the whole notion of "selling out" is primarily based on whether or not you like the film that the anscillary products are based off of. If you love Star Wars, then its really, really fun to have Luke Skywalker underwear and Princess Leia shampoo. But if you hate Phantom Menace, it's annoying to have Jar Jar coloring books and Queen Amidala toothbrushes. The principle is exactly the same though. And Star Wars has never existed without it. The only difference is that the films weren't quite as good in the latter period. And I don't think it's because he doesn't care, I think he just doesn't have the same skill he once did. IMO it really comes down to that. But that's just my view--to people who liked Phantom Menace, it's great that you can have a Queen Amidala toothbrush for the same reason it was great in 1977 to have a Princess Leia shampoo. In principle, Lucas has been fairly consistent actually.

Post
#404012
Topic
Star Wars animated series aimed for pre-schoolers a-comin' (you heard me right!)
Time

Does anyone ever remember Ewoks: the Animated Series? It was aimed at 5-year-olds too. Remember Yoda Stories, the video game for pre-schoolers starring Yoda? How about the some of the toylines out there like Galactic Heroes? I don't know why everyone explodes about "selling out" now, Lucasfilm was partly built on this sort of thing. 5-year-olds are an important demographic to the Star Wars franchise, just like 25-year-olds; the stuff targetted at each group is really no different in principle. The former has Yoda Stories and Squishies, the latter has Knights of the Old Republic and the Live-Action series. They are both about making money and both about making a quality product that appeals to each. Internet nerds never see the big picture.

Post
#403748
Topic
POLL: How do You Mock Lucas' Name?
Time

TheBoost said:

zombie84 said:

Ah, because "Palpatine" is probably based on "Palantine" the politician from Taxi Driver, and there are all these banners and buttons that say "Vote for Palantine". :P

Or their both named after the same hill in Rome.

Only Lucas' friend made the film and his own wife edited it and got nominated for a BAFTA, and then the film became known as one of the great American films of all time. :p

Just saying. The first time the word "Senator Palpatine" was ever used was December 1976, a few months after the film came out where there is a "Senator Palantine".

Post
#403223
Topic
Celebrating 30 years of Empire
Time

It is, but there probably were some original interviews too. The reason Making of Star Wars was almost always 1975-1978 quotes was because the book was initially made during that time but then aborted before it was put together and released. Making of ESB and ROTJ don't have that advantage. I guess we'll have to wait and see how much of it is "unreleased" stuff.

Post
#402833
Topic
"Star Wars" or "A New Hope" or "Episode IV" or "The Original One" or "Star Wars 1977" and why?
Time

Usually if I say "it's like in Star Wars when..." people know what I mean. The reason being that the PT isn't considered "Star Wars" but "Episode whatever", and ESB and ROTJ are known simply by their respective titles. It's only the super-fanboys that have the gall to ask "Do you mean A NEW HOPE??" No asshole, I mean Star Wars, it's one of the most important films in American history.

It reflects the marketing of the films. For almost 30 years "Star Wars" was "Star Wars", and the two sequels were Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. And from the moment the prequels came out they were referred to as "Episode I, II, III", not "Phantom Menace" or "Attack of the Clones". Even when SW was re-released in 1997, all the marketing was "Star Wars" not "A New Hope" or "Episode IV." That only happened really in the post-1999 era, and 1) most people don't respect the prequels enough to re-orient the entire titlings, and 2) it's a lot of work to undo 25 years or so of historical entrenchment.

So for me and for most people, "Star Wars"="Star Wars".

Post
#402661
Topic
"clone wars"=PT for me
Time

I always felt like this was what the PT should have been too. It's not perfect, being episodic some episodes are better than others, but the character interactions and the dramas are generally involving and dramatic and handled okay, and really, that's the least I was ever asking for, and certainly better than most of the PT. I think if Episode I and II were more like this, the PT would be on the OT level overall. Some of the episodes arcs in this series are just so much better than the PT that it really makes those films look bad. Okay, so the episodes are simpler than the PT films, what do you expect, they are 22 minute saturday morning cartoons, but within those parameters they accomplish quite a bit more than Episodes I and II even attempted in terms of character and drama, and thats not insignificant. Salvaging the PT story/characters is no easy feat considering where Lucas left them, but the series does it fairly admirably, which just goes to show that even with the silly plot Lucas devised, it is execution above else that makes the difference.

Post
#402641
Topic
"The People Vs. George Lucas" documentary...
Time

I am looking forward to this as well. It is interesting, at the very least.

The final cut will be tweaked after its premiere apparently. I am scheduled to be interviewed in early May for an evolving cut, though the director has warned me I will probably end up as a DVD extra only. They plan on showcasing some extended inteviews on the DVD, such as Dale Pollock's, which should be interesting (Dale Pollock's book is pretty tremendous). 

I'm really surprised at how much attention this film is getting. I didn't expect Wired would be making multiple articles covering it.

Post
#402077
Topic
Making of Empire Strikes Back pushed back to October.
Time

I doubt they are pushing it back even though it's ready. May is the anniversary. It's likely being pushed back because it's not ready. Don't forget, Making of SW was already half-made since it is just a super-deluxe version of Charles Lippincott's aborted 1977 book--Making of ESB was an improvisation based on that book's success, and not only had to be readied in the same or less time, but it had to start from scratch, rather than just supplement an unpublished manuscript.

Sad, but in some ways understanable. Nothing official been reported yet, so who knows. I don't think there's anything malicious here though, book release dates often get moved around based on progress/editing updates, shame in this case as I was really looking forward to it--I'm sure the decision was based on the fact that releasing it early would result in an inferior product. Then we'd all be complaining about how crappy it is, that they are releasing something not ready instead of delaying it and fixing it (cough, 2004 DVD). I'm glad they are showing some backbone and commitment to quality in this decision.

Post
#400590
Topic
Star Wars Colortiming & Cinematography (was What changes was done to STAR WARS in '93?)
Time

The SE video looks different because the telecine screwed up the coloring. Everything got pink shifted. You can see this even in the new CG shots. The clips from the 1997 doc were a seperate telecine made for promotional purposes, I would guess, before the actual video master for mass production was made later that year. Thus, it would match the theatrical version better.

And yes, I am suggesting the still in the book posted at the beginning of the thread was made from a film print of some kind. It 100% not video. And I really doubt it could be an on-set photograph. It looks like it is direct from a film source.

The pre-ANH bootleg pic posted conforms pretty close to the Japanese and 1989 LD cap posted above. Brighter, with some noticeable saturation in the sky, but nothing too extreme, and not much blue/purple like in the later releases. IMO this is the best indicator of the original shot. If it is, it would also confirm that the the still photo from the book has been massively de-saturated, and also mono-toned.

Post
#400464
Topic
Star Wars Colortiming & Cinematography (was What changes was done to STAR WARS in '93?)
Time

I've heard people say they were disappointed in the 1997 theatrical prints because when they saw Star Wars the color was so vivid and the SE prints looked comparitively subtle. Maybe it's just memory, or maybe they just saw poor SE prints, or maybe they are correct. My impression was that Gil Taylor's pallete was rather pastelle in tone, but there are some moments of vividness (mainly in small details, like lazer blasts, pilot uniforms, background decor). I always thought the SE was a bit oversaturated because of the new color timings in some scenes. I don't know. I have a collection of high res 70mm scans, the color is a bit shifted, but in general it looks like it is between the DE and Japanese version. Which makes sense if the DE is over-saturated a bit, and if the Japanese version is overly bright (brightening brings down saturation, aside from the fact that saturation in older home video releases was generally poorer), which is what I suspect.

Also, I have concluded that the 1993 photo is a scan from the film. Its too perfect a replica of the exact framing of the screen. That its a hair's width open in visual information tells me it is a scan as well, an open matte scan of the film itself. Which is interesting. I don't know how much I should read into the coloring, but it conflicts with all the other material I have seen. I mean, if the Japanese LD is overlit by my estimation, that means the true print should have more saturation, and the photo has half the saturation, not more.

Post
#400436
Topic
George Lucas auteur theory a crock of Bull
Time

He is more of a collaborator now, but not when he started. He had to be coerced into collaborating.

I disagree that he is more of a collaborator now. THX was fairly singular, it is true, but Walter Murch was still behind the script and much of the concept, and he had Oliver Hailey do a screenplay draft as well. But the film is so stripped down that it's easy for one person to control the whole thing, it was almost like the world's most expensive student film in some ways. But Graffiti was extremely collaborative, and Star Wars even more so. And of course those were the last films he directed for twenty years. So two out of his three early films were highly collaborative. As a producer, Lucas was always wavering between lenient and controlling depending on the product; I don't think Raiders and Empire Strikes Back are that far apart from Last Crusade, Radioland Murders and Young Indy in terms of his approach, I think the difference is that Lucas had more investment and guiding direction with Raiders and Empire/Jedi, so his delegation is more noteable in this respect, whereas the later products he didn't care as much. But even Jedi was very strictly controlled by him. He had his finger in pie on Jedi more than any other film he has produced since, up to and including Indy 4.

Lucas is a great moviemaker pre-1990. (producing the Indy films and finishing the Trilogy.) Then everything turned south, and the same can be said for Spielberg to be honest. (Last Crusade and Empire of the Sun are the cutoff.) Once again I stress the word moviemaker as opposed to filmmaker when I discuss these two. I admire them and their work has profoundly affected my life, but for all intense and purposes they are great at what they do: making movies

I find this curious, because I think films like Munich, Catch Me if You Can, and The Terminal are some of the best films Spielberg has done; he's a different person now, older, slightly more mature. I don't think he could do Raiders and E.T. when he was fifty, and I can't imagine him ever having the sensitivity to do any of his later works when he was thirty. I'm curious though, do the style/subject matter/tone/etc of his newer films turn you off, as in you probably wouldn't enjoy them if they were directed by someone other than Spielberg, or is it just that the films themselves don't work?

Post
#400424
Topic
George Lucas auteur theory a crock of Bull
Time

The auteur theory itself is highly suspect when it comes to cinema for this very reason, at least as far as attributing every element to the director. It's more philosophical than literal.

I don't think the studio ever really had any say in his films though. They certainly didn't with THX and Graffiti, which was part of the reason they wanted to abandon the finished products, and thank god they didn't on Star Wars either, even though they tried quite hard. The collaborative success for early Lucas mainly came from the producer-writer-director-actor input, rather than studio.