A discussion of the artisitic validity of Lucas' vision: The controversy of a galaxy, far, far, away

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by 1BAT4U, May 12, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    Yeah, but Han and Leia had fire, especially in that scene. That helped me not notice.

    Ah, so you admit that the dialogue was corny!

    As for the actors having "fire," well, that's clearly a matter of opinion. I'll concede that they played the scene the best they could despite the dialogue, but neither actor was really "on fire."
  2. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    Now when someone actually chooses to defend to acting of Jake Lloyd, Natalie Portman, and Hayden Christensen (the latter 2, under capable direction, are phenominal actors, by the way), within the context of the PT, they have very little ground to stand on, and either feel they way they do because

    A) They will defend anything with Lucas' name attached to it,

    or

    B) They obviously have not one iota of understanding what constitutes craftsmanship in acting.


    For the record, this is classic ad hominem argument.
  3. spring_warm Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 12, 2003
    star 2
    I cant understand why Special effects arents judged the same as acting or writing. Some would say that anyone can do speical effects, and everyone can write too. In a story so based off visual images such as starwars FX is just as important as writing or acting. And should be judged as such. And to say that FX has no personal touch is also wrong, watch closely there are little points of personal relism thrown in.


    Whether a film is good or not is totally subjective,


    Whether or not you think a film if good or not is totaly subjected not whether not its good. Shindlers List is a good movie, if you think shakespeare is horrible, you are wrong. Its still your opinon, your wrong opinon.


    Id say the PT dialogue is on par with the OT, i watched ANH a couple days ago and i wanted to pull my hair out on account of some of the HORRIBLE dialogue. If some of the lines in the OT were in the PT they would be staple examples of why the pt dialogue "sucks". both the OT and the PT have an equal amount of horrible lines, but the OT has more good lines then the PT.



  4. DarthAttorney Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2000
    star 6
    OK, from now on I don't want anyone tearing anyone else's posts apart and rebutting them. You are free to state your own opinion and back it up however you want but do not personalise your posts to aim them at another person who has a differing opinion to you.

    I don't want to lock this thread, I think it has the potential to be good if people on both sides of the fence can control themselves and act like adults.

    :)
  5. DamonD Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 22, 2002
    star 6
    Now when someone actually chooses to defend to acting of Jake Lloyd, Natalie Portman, and Hayden Christensen (the latter 2, under capable direction, are phenominal actors, by the way), within the context of the PT, they have very little ground to stand on, and either feel they way they do because

    A) They will defend anything with Lucas' name attached to it,

    or

    B) They obviously have not one iota of understanding what constitutes craftsmanship in acting.



    So if I actually do like Hayden's acting in AOTC, I'm a Lucas zombie or a fool?

    Wow. I can't believe anyone would be that ignorant to suggest something like that. Wow.

    Your mind is utterly closed and made-up to take that attitude, and nothing anyone says will get through to you. What's the point of me listing why I enjoyed Hayden's performance in AOTC when you've already set out your stall to basically pay no attention? No matter how convincingly I could put forward a case, I would be one of the two as above, in your eyes.

    This is meant to be a forum. Discussion of ideas, and so on. Don't close your mind to something just because you don't identify or believe in it.
  6. The_Abstract Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 16, 2002
    star 4
    Ok, since I'm not supposed to directly refer to other people's posts because it would be too personal I will generally discuss which filmmaking techniques George Lucas used to tell his story successfully and even bravely in the Prequels.


    I first must use a disclaimer here. I'm not a film student. Not much of a director or an auteur so I assume certain people will immediately dismiss my "stupid, naive, unrealistic" take on the Prequels and laugh heartily at this poor wretch.

    But if there's one set of films I know about, it's Star Wars. I'm not unqualified on that. I'll go toe-to-toe with anyone here on what makes a great Star Wars film.

    So what filmmaking techniques does George Lucas use to make the prequels great movies.

    Well, I assume, in this great age of technical wonderment, a decent color palette would communicate certain visual clues to the audience. Once we enter the digital stage this pays off in spades. Colors just jump off the screen now. Now what George Lucas does with color is use it quite effectively to contrast as much as possible with the Original Trilogy.

    Some great examples:

    1. Naboo transport ships. Nothing says new and shiny, like, well, new and shiny. How does the analogy go: Naboo Transport:Cadillac :: Millenium Falcon:p.O.S.

    2. Naboo and Tatooine. These planets couldn't be farther apart aesthetically, but they linked by two people whom destiny has chosen to play Cupid with. How does that line by Anakin go?

    "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating, and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth."

    3. Shadows and light- Ex. Dooku in Geonosian prison cell interrogating Obi-Wan. Watch him stroll around again.

    4. The sterile lab look of Kamino contrasted with the dark brooding storms outside.

    5. The Coruscant nightlife, full of neon hues that pop right off the screen. I guess I should sue Lucas for retina burn.

    6. Anakin's dark robes contrasted with the Tatooine double sunlight.

    7. The wonderful underwater chandelier that is the Gungan capital.

    8. The very familiar interior of the Trade Federation ships.

    9. The industrial graveyard where Sidious and Tyranus meet.

    10. The Droid Foundry. Can't go wrong with rusty conveyor belts, hot molten metal, and electrical sparks. I love how this took off from concept designs and how Lucas delegated responsibility to some of the ILM talent to pull it off.


    That's one aspect I dig about the prequel filmmaking. Anyone else care to contribute to the filmmaking techniques that George Lucas employs to make the prequels great films?

  7. 1BAT4U Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2003
    star 1
    This appears to be an arguement I will not win everyone over on. That's OK. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

    And some of the people on this thread, I now believe, have stated very valid positions on why they enjoy the PT, as long as they are willing that they are underschooled on the nuances of film. I can accept that without any further critisicm.

    A weak arguement with specific citation is worlds better than a statement of general subjectivity, a la "I think it's great because I can and you can't stop me, because everything is subjective."

    And the statement "everything is subjective" is, to a point, true, but as someone brought up earlier, if you think Shakespeare is irrelevant, you'll have many learnèd scholars calling for your blood. I would think that defining the true relevant spectrum of subjectivity falls within the opinions of fellow film craftsmen. For a construction worker to call a Gaugin painting "boring" means a lot less than Picasso calling Gaugin "derivitive."


    So, I will boldly claim that one's subjective definition of quality depends on the amount of knowledge you have regarding the subject matter. Anyone have anything to add and/or refute?
  8. Scott3eyez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2001
    star 4
    >>>For a construction worker to call a Gaugin painting "boring" means a lot less than Picasso calling Gaugin "derivitive."

    How about Gaugin (or any "traditional" painter) calling a Picasso painting "nothing more than a mess"?

    Someone so used to the set of conventions they apply to their own work may not have a positive reaction to a film that breaks them, simply because it breaks the rules that they see as "good."

    But to me, to call a Star Wars film bad because the acting wasn't good is like calling a Lord of the Rings film bad because the science wasn't correct. (ie. irrelevant.)
  9. urgent_jedi_picnic Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    I have admitted plenty of times (even on the 1st page here) that the dialogue in OT isn't great. I just think the PT dialogue is worse.

    Anyway, I am "underschooled on the nuances of film". And I ask: So what? My opinion that dialogue in the PT is bad is not weak. It is perfectly valid on it's own and I don't owe any further explanation. I get the feeling that this thread is trying to suggest that to have an opinion, you have to be able to verbalise a specific reason why and have expertise in the subject you speak of. And, it seems that if you have a reason why, but no expertise, your position is "weak." Which is ridiculous.

    Why do some like the OT and not the PT? Why do some like Broccoli and others don't? Do you honestly think you can talk somebody else into liking or disliking broccoli? Not a chance. You either like it or you don't. No explanation needed.

    I think there is nothing wrong with simply stating your opinion and that being the end of it. I do, however, think it's "wrong" when people pass off their own opinions as fact. Which has already happened a few times in this thread. (I could cut and paste, but apparently that's not allowed...)

    The Picnic :eek:
  10. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    I would think that defining the true relevant spectrum of subjectivity falls within the opinions of fellow film craftsmen.

    So, I will boldly claim that one's subjective definition of quality depends on the amount of knowledge you have regarding the subject matter. Anyone have anything to add and/or refute?


    Yet even fellow craftsmen can disagree. For instance, Lucas' collegues like Steven Spielberg and Frank Darabont enthusiastically support the prequels while the Wachowski brothers and Terry Gilliam have been very critical. So even leaving it to fellow film craftsmen to render a judgement of the quality of a film does not produce a definitive answer. If even learned filmmaker's can not reach a concensus, what hope is there for us ignorant, unwashed masses?

    At the end of the day, there is plenty of room for subjectivity. Since personal biases play a large part in what one considers quality (regardless of their level of expertise), it is impossible to arrive at a definitive standard.

    For instance, I'm a television photographer and editor. I absolutely loath the MTV shakey-cam. I despise it. I refuse to ever shoot in that style because I think it looks sloppy and lazy. A co-worker of mine, on the other hand, thinks it looks very artistic and gives his images a dynamic edginess that is impossible to achieve otherwise. So which of us is right? Truthfully, neither, since what I consider to be poor quality my co-worker considers a valid and effective form of visual expression.

    With all things being equal, there comes a point where one must simply fall back on their opinion and make a subjective judgement call, and one's level of expertise in the matter is quite honestly irrelevant.

    Bottom line: All opinions are valid. This is not to say that when one's opinion contradicts established fact we should be willing to accept it (for instance, if one were to say that it is his opinion that cats can live a full and healthy life while submerged in a swimming pool, we must disregard his "opinion" because it clearly contradicts fact), but when talking about art and self expression, there is very, very little established fact. Therefore, much of what one subjectively considers quality is perfectly valid.
  11. spring_warm Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 12, 2003
    star 2
    Why do some like Broccoli and others don't?


    Theres a gene in our dna that determines whether or not we like broccoli


    movies and food are way different, bad analogy
  12. urgent_jedi_picnic Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 14, 2003
    star 4
    :eek: :D ;)

    OK, but don't belittle the point. It's a perfectly valid one. Switch broccoli to "Metallica." Any objections now?

    By the way, your objection is flawed anyway. I used to hate broccoli. Now I like it. Has my DNA pattern been altered in the past 10 years since high school?

    The Picnic :eek:
  13. J-Solo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 6, 1999
    star 4
    Subjectivity is the only possible approach to reviewing. What is a review but an opinion? Those who call for you to be objective are revealing that they have not given the matter a moment's serious thought. Most times, those calling for objectivity are essentially saying they wish you had written a review that reflected their subjective opinion.

    Well....I don't know if I agree with that completely, but it was written by Roger Ebert.

    ps: in fact, my opinion on the matter is: I know that Bergman is an honorable, respected artist, and I know that he makes quality films. On the other hand, subjectively, I think some of his films are just boring. So I guess you can say a film is objectivily good and subjectivily bad. Does it make any sense? :)
  14. 1BAT4U Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2003
    star 1
    In response to an earlier arguement, I think that most anything that Spielberg, Darabont, or Francis Ford Coppolla have to say regarding Lucas' work is undoubtedly biased, since the 3 men are both long-time colleagues and personal friends of George.

    I mean, Lucas and Speilberg are still working together, and Darabont works for them both.


    And although Speilberg has made some general and inspecific praises towards Lucas' lastest work, he has also admittedly asked George to step down from the director's chair, if just for one episode. I can't justify any reason such a close and personal friend would want to take their friend's job from them, unless they felt that it could be done better. I don't remember Lucas asking to direct any Jurassic Park installment, or any other Speilberg project for that matter.
  15. DamonD Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 22, 2002
    star 6
    I can't justify any reason such a close and personal friend would want to take their friend's job from them, unless they felt that it could be done better.

    Maybe he'd like Lucas to not work so hard, for his own health. Lucas has devoted a major chunk of his life to SW.

    I don't know, I've never spoken to Lucas or Spielberg about this so I can't draw comparisons in all fairness.
  16. G-FETT Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    I LOVE the PT, and see absoultly no reason at all to justify myself in this thread!

    PS, The_Abstract is talking much sense. Listen to him you should. :D
  17. StarDude Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2001
    star 5
    1BAT4U, you are walking circles around his post. He presented a lot to back up why the PT were good films.
  18. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    In response to an earlier arguement, I think that most anything that Spielberg, Darabont, or Francis Ford Coppolla have to say regarding Lucas' work is undoubtedly biased, since the 3 men are both long-time colleagues and personal friends of George.

    So what you're saying is that someone can't be Lucas' personal friend and genuinally like his movies. The only reason they say they like them is because they're his friends and don't want to hurt his feelings by telling him the "truth". Right.

    You know, I just love it when people accuse Lucas of having the shallowest friends in the world.

    And although Speilberg has made some general and inspecific praises towards Lucas' lastest work, he has also admittedly asked George to step down from the director's chair...

    Not exactly. He's hinted that he would like a shot at directing a STAR WARS film because he thinks it would be fun and would consider it an honor, not because he is asking Lucas "to step down from the diretor's chair" because he thinks he could do a better job. I'm not sure where you got that from.
  19. Scott3eyez Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2001
    star 4
    >>>...he has also admittedly asked George to step down from the director's chair, if just for one episode.

    When?
  20. DamonD Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 22, 2002
    star 6
    I like Spielberg but...not for Star Wars.
  21. chongnam Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 15, 2003
    star 1
    Have you guys seen Taxi Driver? I'm sure the politician whose office Cybill Shephard worked in was called Palpatine. Is this Palp. making his first moves in the world of Evil Domination, and in New York, no less?
  22. DarthAttorney Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2000
    star 6
    I think it's actually Palantine in Taxi Driver.
  23. chongnam Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 15, 2003
    star 1
    Deeply, deeply suspicious. An obvious cruet of Palpatine/Palantine's trademark treachery.
  24. 1BAT4U Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2003
    star 1
    Sometimes I wonder if people make their aguements on this board just because they can, because I really have trouble believing that people actually believe some of the things they say.
  25. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    I really have trouble believing that people actually believe some of the things they say.

    ?[face_plain]
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.