Did TPM turn out to be the high point of the PT?

Strilo-- think of it as actors being in an environment not conducive to exemplary work. Its analogous to other jobs as well. Theatre of the Absurd utilizes the absence of identifiable set in order to make constantly remind people that what they are viewing is not real. The same principles apply. If you are consistently reminded your work is not "real," I see no reason why the performance should feel real.

Also...

Why is this? I see no reason why his performance can't be tight in both. "Batman Begins" was an action/superhero film and yet all of its performances were stellar in my book. Christian Bale does fine work in both his action films as well as films like "The Machinist"

 

But all acting is making the unreal real, whether you're standing in front of an unreal background or talking to an unreal person or whether you're in front of a camera or a live audience.

Good acting comes from a combination of the actors inherent ability to find the essence of what they're trying to portray, the quality of the script in front of them and in many cases, the relationship between the actors and the director.

Star Wars is not an easy place for actors to shine as one, two, or sometimes all three of these things are absent.

 

Yes, the relationship between actor/director is crucial as well. That is another reason why I believe the acting in the PT largely fails.

And yes, acting is unreal. But you don't think that --for actors-- creating the illusion of reality in which they give their performances comes easier if the environment is actually stimulating. After all, that's how things work in the real world, our bodies react to external stimuli. With no stimuli present, there are bound to be at least subtle differences.

EDIT: I'm not saying good greenscreen acting is impossible to achieve -- anything is possible -- but it definitely requires much more experience and discipline and is much more taxing on an actor. And when almost an entire film is made (unnecessarily, as I see it) on a greenscreen and the focus is supposed to be character, I think the greenscreen takes a toll.

I mean, the 300 was entirely greenscreen and that was just a bunch of guys yelling one-liners. Don't get me wrong, I love Spartans destroying stuff as much as the next guy, but it wasn't the pinnacle of acting.

Greenscreen is also relatively new, I believe it was conceived around the 50s, but I could be very wrong. And it wasn't used to the extent it is today until things like the PT and the 300. Its only natural that the transition isn't extremely smooth.

 

well saying that GL should not have put as much cgi in the movies as he did is asking the impossible becouse with a story like that there is NO way it could be done with out cgi. The only way there could EVER be cool and interesting planets and environments is with cgi. Look at the OT,the first movie there was a desert,than a snow planet,than just plane old woods becouse he just ran out of extreme environments on this earth and THAT is why he waited so long to do the PT becouse for us to see even the most important planets like Coruscant would have been impossible. He was even lucky enough to show us cloud city witch is the most interesting and different environment in the OT and if it wasn't for mat paintings he wouldn't even have been able to show us that! So do you hate could city becouse most of it is done with mat paintings? There is NO WAY to get around it, in order for it to be star wars there has to be cgi!

 

I won't get into a long drawn out debate, but I will say that TPM is my favorite of the PT.

 

I'm sure the green screen thing is an extra challenge for some actors. In my opinion, it takes a good actor to appear convincing in SW, because there's a lot going up against them. In my opinion, the good actors did a good job in all the SW movies, the mediocre were mediocre and the poor actors were poor.

As for CGI, in my opinion there's CGI to add variety, depth and scope to the setting of a film, and then there's pointless showing off CGI. Impressive planetary backdrops is the former, silly podrace characters and giant ride-on fleas are the latter.

 

First of all there is no CGI in the OT (except for the Special Editions). So it can be Star Wars without CGI. Matte paintings are not CGI and not being discussed. No I do not hate Cloud City. And

AND I never said he shouldn't have used CGI. I said he shouldn't have made it the crutch he did. Do you honestly feel he needed to create things like CGI hallways rather than just build a hallway to film in and maybe tamper with it digitally if he needed to in the editing room? And even if he wanted to, he should have worked harder at getting realistic performances out of his actors. I don't blame Ewan McGregor for letting me down in Episode III, I blame George Lucas for not focusing on Ewan's acting in the film.

CGI is eye candy. It really is. Beautiful and sugary and most of us love it. But if you live on candy you come out feeling crappy. You need some real food to give you the proper energy. Candy is not bad, but you need to moderate it, not go wild feasting on it. Same thing with CGI.

And I don't think that CGI is why he waited so long to do the PT. I think at the time he thought... "Well, three is enough." Then when effects got a bit better he said "Why not?" Had he wanted to make them back them, I honestly think he would have.

Once again, I'm NOT against CGI. It is wonderful and has given us many great moments in film history. That being said, I completely disagree with your statement that the Star Wars saga could be done without CGI. The film industry survived years and years and years without Computer Generated Images. It can survive without it. Is it a great addition to film? That's debatable. I would say yes, when used properly. But I would say its not a necessity.

EDIT:

I agree with quoted points.

 

Well to be fair matte paintings and cgi are ALMOST the same exact thing and used for the same exact purpose. Films always had to turn to one of them in order to do movies about certain things and star wars is a perfect example. Now that we have cgi instead of looking at a painting we can see beautiful moving images and all kinds of things. A good example is the wizard of oz,if you look in the backgrounds you can very clearly tell that its all just a painting but Now film makers are not so restrained thanks to cgi.Now we can actually see a real looking alien character that can get up and walk around with out having to keep the camera above waste becouse its a puppet, we can see it raise its arms and see expressions on its face.

You sed you think Lucas could have done the PT right after ROTJ if he wanted. Explain to me how anyone in the world would go about doing that? how in the world would you go about showing the planet Coruscant? how would we be able to see a pod race? or any chase and/or race of any kind through a city like Coruscant or any new environments what so ever? how would you go about creating an environment like the beautiful underwater city from TPM or the planet kamino from AOTC or the awesome volcano planet mustafar that obi-wan and vader fight on or even something as simple and important to the story line as the senate.

I understand what you mean when you talk about the hallways being all totally cgi but in the commentary of the AOTC dvd producer Rick Mcalum makes a very good point and explanation about things like that(if you want to watch it its the scene where mace walks in to the senate room and joins yoda to hear palpatine's unlimited powers speech) and he say actually building something like that would take 100's of man hours and thousands of dollars to do all for ONE QUICK SEC. of screen time.Also to be fair it was the galactic senate on the capital world of Coruscant so if it was the only place in the whole galaxy to look big than thats the place that should be that way.

Another very good point that Lucas himself made was that in ANH when luke talks about being stuck in his small far corner of the galaxy after seeing the PT you will finally know what hes talking about and then in the 2nd half of that movie and the ones after it you will slowly see more and more of the galaxy and fantastic things. Watching the story in order will be an incredible experience when you slowly start to realize the transition from a clean pretty galaxy to a run down, war torn "lived in" galaxy so you can for the first time actually SEE the transition of HOW it got to be that way. Lucas sed oh wouldn't it be fun to see HOW the galaxy got to be "lived in" since we are doing "prequels" we can see that.I think it was a great idea.

 

Wasn't the OT made without the use of CGI or am I missing something here? You don't NEED cgi to make a good movie. You need good writing, good acting and good directing. The PT has very very little of any of these hence the little credit I give it.

 

Ian was in City of Vice which he got great reviews for. There was little of no CGI in that. Jackson did Black Snake Moan again no cgi. Many people have said its his best work to date. I'm not sure why Ewan should turn out a better performance in an Independent movie instead of a larger movie? Maybe its the CGI that put him off.

If you think that the blue/green screen is a weak excuse thats your opinion. Until you act in a movie that has no cgi and then act in one thats full of it and can say it didnt affect you Iii continue to think that actors need more than a blue screen to help there performance. After all it makes more sense.

 

No, they are not almost the same thing at all. They are sometimes used for a common purpose, but CGI (which requires computers -- hence Computer Generated Image) is ten times more extensive in its reach than Matte Paintings (which were used before computers were even created). CGI can create moving backgrounds (as you said) and things like animals, characters, spaceships, etc... Matte Paintings cannot. This is like comparing apples and oranges and saying they are the same thing because they can both feed you when you're hungry.

The first Matte Painting was used in 1907. Films were around before that. In fact, "A Trip To The Moon" --that is that film where the clip of a spaceship crashing into the moon with the face on it (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Le_Voyage_dans_la_lune.jpg) is from -- was made in 1902. Before Matte Paintings. Here is a movie about space with no Matte Paintings. Crude, yes. But it was done all the same, and the fact that this film is still even around more than a century later says something.

Are Matte Paintings and CGI useful? YES. I am glad we have them and glad they are used. Are there things we can only do with Matte Paintings and CGI? YES. And you're right, Star Wars is a great example of that. But does film need them to exist and should film rely on them? I'd say no. Use them, yes, but do not rely upon them over the other elements of film such as acting, story, etc...

Simple, the story would have been much, much different, and maybe better. I don't buy the whole "I knew exactly what was going to happen the whole time" explanation Lucas constantly gives. There are too many inconsistencies in that for me.

One of the early drafts of Return of the Jedi involved an assault on the Imperial City. I forget what he called it in the draft, but its obviously a precursor to a Coruscant-like planet. So, if he was planning on doing something like that for Return of the Jedi, I don't see how he couldn't for a film made a few years later. I don't know how he was planning to do it, miniatures maybe.

I see no reason why he could not have done Senate scenes.

Ok, fair enough point on quick shots. But some sets were used for more than just a few seconds. Now its been a while, but wasn't the Chancellor's office used in multiple scenes and for more than a few seconds worth of footage? And you've gotta remember that during filming, they'll work for hours on a scene, using that set for hours. Its not like its not put to good use. Some sacrifices need to be made. Directors should worry about the quality of film they produce and if, in doing so, they end up employing extra people -- then yey for the economy.

I don't get what you're saying here.

 

Different? Certainly. Better? Doubt it. It's clear that Lucas was tired of Star Wars by the time ROTJ was scripted. Why else would an artist choose to compress at least six hours of dramatically rich material--Han's rescue, Luke's enlightenment, Vader's redemption, the identity of "The Other", the destruction of the Empire--into a mere two-hour film? The result is a textbook case on how NOT to craft a finale. ROTJ is just plain sloppy, and I'm glad that Lucas didn't tackle TPM until he got that desperation out of his system.

 

Well, he had already settled into the tradition of 2-hour films; it's not like ROTJ was destined to be 4 hours in any possible outcome.

 

No, I'm saying the material demanded at least two episodes: the first to chronicle Luke's traumas/transition into maturity, the first chinks in Vader's armor, the reveal of the "Other", and the climactic rescue of Han; the second to chronicle the twins' descent into Hell, the redemption of Vader, and the dismantling of Palpatine's regime.

This stuff needed to breathe.

 

Exactly. I agree completely. The point of confusion is my fault, I didn't make myself clear. I was speaking hypothetically -- had Lucas wanted/had the drive and energy to make the prequels at that time he would have. However, he didn't. Which I think was a good move. I mean, ANH put the man in the hospital so there's obviously a lot of stress involved.

It would have been different, I think we can agree. How different, we'll never know. I only say it might have been better (had he had the energy and drive to make them back then) because there would be more of a continuity between the time he made the first trilogy. Also, had he made them then, he might have continued letting other directors and writers have a hand in the process. As you know, ESB and RotJ were handled by more than just Lucas in those departments. That is another reason why I believe they would have fared a bit better. But its all theories!

Oh and you're right about the fact that there's a lot going on in RotJ. It suffers the fate of many other "thirds" in trilogies -- it bites off more than it can chew.

EDIT:

And to be fair, I should let you know that I can also agree with your point about it needing time to breathe. Yet I think he should have continued allowing other writers and directors a hand in his work. Films are composite pieces, and George is only one man. His love for his work really is admirable, that he'd keep doing all that, but I think maybe he was a bit over his head. Many films have multiple writers, although some aren't credited. There's no shame in brainstorming with other people. Its a process that really opens things up. No one would have said "He's copping out by bringing in other people!" That's what he did with ESB and RotJ and we still recognize them as HIS films.

 

Had Lucas kept his vigor, it probably would've been better if he filmed them in the 80's, if only to preserve the atmosphere. Just remember, there's no guarantee that continuity would be maintained, as each of the two OT sequels was chock full of retcons?-e.g., the Empire's stronger than ever, Vader and Anakin are one and the same, the Emperor changes from stately Clive Revill to cackling Ian McDiarmid, Vader loses his Imperial ambitions, etc.

In my ideal world, Lucas would've put the franchise on hiatus once Empire was released. He then would've taken a long nap, filmed one of those esoteric features he's wanted to do, returned to SW with restored mojo, assembled a competent creative team, filmed Ep. VI and VII back-to-back, declare yet another hiatus, and begin the cycle anew.

 

If only CGI was used only for the same purposes as matte paintings!

I think by ROTJ GL had moved well away from his early, experimental, indie tendencies, toward the family-friendly, kiddie humour-loving filmmaker that we know that he now is. ROTJ needed a hard edge in my opinion. It needed some serious darkness and tragedy to go with it's ultimately happy ending. But with GL at the helm, it was always going to be teddy bears and happily ever after. I think TPM has much the same feel as ROTJ in many respects.

The best scenario for me is GL coming up with the basic story and then having things handed over to other specialists. A really good screenwriter and a really good director who relates well to actors. Put those together and you get greatness. You get TESB.

 

In some respects, perhaps. Both films have sluggish pacing, and are host to questionable revelations.

And yet I give TPM far more leeway. Whereas ROTJ in many ways epitomizes "paint-by-numbers SW", cannibalizing so many elements from the original--e.g., the Cantina scene is extended to a half-hour, the Death Star battle is given a larger canvas--TPM at least attempts to take the series in a new direction. The plot is atypically labyrinthine--perhaps it's the first SW film that requires the viewer to keep his/her brain on. There's a genuine sense of discovery, as we're whisked from Naboo, to the Tatooine races, all the way to the Senate chambers on Coruscant (a bit more exciting than the redwood forests of California). Liam Neeson is simply a more commanding, magnetic presence than Mark Hamill; and Lucas a more innovative director than the late Richard Marquand (the worst sequence in TPM is still better staged than the Skiff battle). And finally, while ROTJ leaves us with a saccharin ending, TPM boasts one of the most subversive endings to any fantasy film, inviting us to celebrate the coronation of the galactic Stalin.

I know I'm alone in this, but I'd rank TPM above JEDI any day.

 

drg4, your points are pretty solid on the strengths of TPM, in my opinion. Good posts. And good call on the 'preservation of atmosphere' -- you said that much better than I did -- and on the abundance of retcons in the OT.

Also feel like I should quote DarthDuckie for truth: "The best scenario for me is GL coming up with the basic story and then having things handed over to other specialists. A really good screenwriter and a really good director who relates well to actors. Put those together and you get greatness. You get TESB."

 

I haven't posted, or even poked around these boards much, in over two years, but, wow, I just had to here.

I love TPM, I think its frickin' great. I loved it in '99 and still do. But its not better than ROTS, its just not as focused or as dramatically effective. For the record, this is coming from someone who feels that each episode is, at least, a "good movie". They all have clunky bits, some more than others, but they all succeed* in what they set out to do.

Anyway, have fun guys!

*yes, to different degrees, but the gaps are often not as great as some like to think.

 

Haha, I'm glad we could bring you out of retirement, Koto-Ogami.

I'm with you, this was my first thread outing here in years and now I can't stay away.

 

To DarthStothe : The Chancellor's office was definitely not cgi except for the window it was a big set that they built (i have seen it in many documentary's) and you would be surprised how many sets are completely built and real (except for out the windows). And when i sed cgi and matte paintings were the same thing i meant when it comes to backgrounds my bad for not specifying.

Also i have heard that too about the ROTJ Coruscant-like planet and MAYBE they would be able to pull off something HALF as good if they were lucky with very limited long camera shots but it would never be any wear near as cool looking as the real Coruscant. Coruscant is one of the things that the PT really added to the whole saga and well i like it,it really is one of those good things about the PT people should be happy for. Coruscant as well as ANY other great planet from the PT JUST WOULD NOT look the same if it were done in the 80's. To give you a perfect example Naboo was a beautiful planet that was mostly only made up of big,grand,beautiful nature (waterfalls,grassy planes etc.)with an ancient Rome kind of look to it and the only way to pull the camera back and actually SHOW all this stuff you need some cgi or else you will be using a helicopter and going half way around the world to try and find a place to shoot a couple scenes forand still wont be able to go way up high to see a big view of everything like in the picnic scene with anakin and padme on naboo.With cgi you dont half to go on a mountain some wear and wait a month for the sunset to look just right,you can just make it look beautiful just the same.

 

And btw that movie you mentioned "A Trip To The Moon" i have heard of it and correct me if im wrong but wasn't that movie SOOOO OLD that it was about people landing on the moon and encountering alien-like "moon people" becouse it is so old people back then didn't know what the moon was like at all? And there was some people that actually thought there was aliens on the moon. no offense but if a movie is THAT old i really dont think it should be compared to a star wars movie.

 

About the PT getting made in the mid, late 80's.

I do think that they could have been done, there is very little from a story point of view that REQUIRES vast amounts of cgi.
The movies could have had mostly the same story, places and events.
Things that would be different; Jar Jar would be guy in suit, battle droids, same thing or animatronics, Clone troopers would be guys in suit and so on. Yoda would probably not be able to fight which would change the fights in AotC and RotS. In AotC it would not be a problem as you simply could use Mace instead. (This fight was sort of nifty the first time but now it has not aged well and I do feel that a fight between Dooku and Mace would have been better.)
The RotS fight would be different but again you can use Mace then and have the turn happen in another way.

As for visuals, take Blade Runner, that had a vast cityscape and was VERY impressive back then and still is in my view. So Coruscant is very doable.
Naboo could also have been made with little problem, it's very earthlike so build what you need and you can have stunning visuals. Kamino, mostly it is interiors so a few models shots and then move inside.

Of course the films would LOOK somewhat different, some of the visuals might be a little limited, amounts of creatures on screen would probably be lower. But I think that they could have been made.

Would they have been better? I can not answer that, it is clear that Lucas was fed up with SW after RotJ and for him to do more films when he was not up for it would probably have resulted in poor films.

But I also think that sometimes Lucas gets carried away by what cgi can do and that does not always work. I think that Terry Gilliam is right when he says that limitations can be a benfit for the film maker and not always a problem. Limitations forces you to be creative, to really think things through and you find yourself going down paths that you might never have tried otherwise.
Take MP and the Holy Grail, initially the idea was for all the knight to ride but since they could not afford that they came up with coconuts instead. So it was cheaper and they created a great gag as well.

In closing, I am glad he made the PT films, to me they are not bad films by any stretch but neither are they great films. They range from mediocre to pretty good. They have a number of very good ideas in them and the overall story is good but they have flaws when it comes to the details. The writing, the plot points, some of the acting and the pace and editing is sometimes off.

Regards
Nordom

 

I agree with Nordom on all his points.

The only consideration I would throw in was the Ewok craze in the mid 80's.

Hard to "go back" and re-evaluate the situation .... but the two SW Ewok movies, the Wilford Brimley Ewok TV show, the "Droids" Cartoon show, ---- a 1980's made PT would succumb to some of the "fads" that dominated SW in the 80's.


And I don't think that would have been a bad thing necessarily.