main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Does Lucas' vision make TPM the best Star Wars movie?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Phantom Menace' started by TheAnointedOne, Dec 11, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RevengeofDahveed

    RevengeofDahveed Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2002
    that goes double for you.
     
  2. Son_Of_Kurtzman

    Son_Of_Kurtzman Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
     
  3. RevengeofDahveed

    RevengeofDahveed Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2002
  4. Son_Of_Kurtzman

    Son_Of_Kurtzman Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Glad we're in agreement. Now, when you have something interesting to add, come back.
     
  5. YoungPadawanLearner

    YoungPadawanLearner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Man, do I hate trolls.


    To the topic: I do not think Lucus' vision makes TPM the best SW movie. But I do think His vision makes a very, very good SW movie.
     
  6. Darth-Stryphe

    Darth-Stryphe Former Mod and City Rep star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 24, 2001
    But like I said, I did not go to XF forums and complain about how much it sucked, because I knew people still liked it. Bashers feel free to come here and regularly question the taste and sanity of people who like the PT, and say things like, "You amaze me. You've actually managed to convince yourself that TPM was a good movie."

    You completely did not read my post, obviously.
     
  7. Jedi_Waster

    Jedi_Waster Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 1, 2002
    "why you continue to devote your time and energy and money to movies you hate and a man you don't respect."

    I suppose I'm guilty of spending my time and energy, but I've remained adamant about not buying PT merchandise (OT and EU on the other hand...).

    "How is that bad?"

    The attitude suggests to me that if the movie is finished then it's best to just release it, because 'it'll never be complete anyway'. Shortcuts are taken and the final product isn't as good as it could have been.
    In fact, I applaud GL's honesty here, it's probably true and yet most film -makers would try and deny it.

    "That's true to an extent, but many of the contributors, from the actors to Irvin Kershner to Lawrence Kasdan all give Lucas a great deal of credit."

    I know, and for all my harping (is that even a word?) GL is indeed the author of this saga and he's an amazing talent. Do you know if there was any pressure on George to get screenplays written for the OT, and what differences were in pressure there were when he sat down to write the PT? I think he set himself an astronomically tough challenge when he chose to do these episodes, he hasn't totally messed the story up which deserves him some respect.

    "How do you know that wasn't the plan from the start?"

    You've got me there, or is that the cat? I don't of course, Binks' role in AOTC could well have been planned apart from the public reaction, but I think it could have been a factor.

    "First Lucas gets slammed for not caring what fans want, then he gets slammed for catering to the fans. He can't win."

    I know, my comments make it impossible for GL to 'get it right', and after reading it again, I realise how silly it sounds!

    "Justify it? Why would he have to "justify" it?"

    He doesn't have to justify anything, because at the end of the day it is his story after all, I should re-read my posts before hitting that 'post' button! I suppose what I meant to say, and was being too obnoxious to actually elaborate, was that I didn't feel Jango Fett's presence was necessary given the overall story of the saga, and that it would have been nice to see a new character inhabit the same role. But in the end, the Fett family's presence helps to connect the two trilogies together, like Owen and Beru and the Death Star plans.



    "I hate being told that movies that haven?t even come out are gonna be better than AOTC, or that TPM was no good because of something that rests purely as opinion."

    I agree with you, it's not a good attitude to have. And whilst I'd normally say 'hah! ROTK will kick AOTC @$$!!!11' like the occasional delinquent that I can be, I won't. About time I grow up.

    "I spent a month and a half in pre-production, production and post trying to craft a unique four-minute story visually, only to have it taken out of my hands at the last minute."

    My heartfelt condolences, this sounds awful!

    "I think the prequel films are a labor of love"

    I agree. Unfortunately I feel that GL and I love different things now. The way of the world I suppose. But I can't understand why he's so adamant about changing the OT... does he not like them?

    "Shelly, please don?t listen to the person who posted this. If he/she doesn?t have time to read well thought out opinions, then why join in on a conversation to begin with. Keep doing what you are doing? it?s great."

    Well said, keep posting Shelley.
     
  8. Shelley

    Shelley Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    I suppose I'm guilty of spending my time and energy, but I've remained adamant about not buying PT merchandise (OT and EU on the other hand...).

    Works for me. :)

    The attitude suggests to me that if the movie is finished then it's best to just release it, because 'it'll never be complete anyway'.

    Many artists, be they authors or filmmakers or whatever, regard their art as a work in progress. Authors from J.R.R. Tolkien to Anne Rice have, in effect, rewritten their own books when they work on a series. Does that mean they were sloppy in releasing their books when they did? No, it just means that times change, people change, tastes change.

    Shortcuts are taken and the final product isn't as good as it could have been.

    Hmmm. What you call "shortcuts" I call "bowing to necessary restrictions." You yourself pointed out that Lucas had to make changes to the OT based on budgetary restrictions and so forth. While he has fewer restrictions with the PT -- CGI has given him the freedom to fashion amazing worlds and characters which weren't possible back in the 1970s and 1980s -- he still has restrictions. And sometimes an artist thinks that such-and-such would be a bad idea at the time he's crafting his art, but some years later changes his mind.

    I know, and for all my harping (is that even a word?)

    Yes, it is.

    GL is indeed the author of this saga and he's an amazing talent. Do you know if there was any pressure on George to get screenplays written for the OT, and what differences were in pressure there were when he sat down to write the PT? I think he set himself an astronomically tough challenge when he chose to do these episodes, he hasn't totally messed the story up which deserves him some respect.

    I imagine he was under pressure with the OT, yes. As for the PT, he was probably under less pressure, but he was still under pressure. Films like these demand flying by the seat of your pants some of the time, when unforseen circumstances arise (i.e., the storm that wrecked the Tatooine set for TPM).

    You've got me there, or is that the cat? I don't of course, Binks' role in AOTC could well have been planned apart from the public reaction, but I think it could have been a factor.

    Maybe, maybe not.

    I know, my comments make it impossible for GL to 'get it right', and after reading it again, I realise how silly it sounds!

    I don't envy Lucas being in the position he is in. It seems that no matter what he does, people will bash him. He doesn't care about the fans. No wait, he's catering to the fans and compromising his vision. And so forth.

    He doesn't have to justify anything, because at the end of the day it is his story after all, I should re-read my posts before hitting that 'post' button! I suppose what I meant to say, and was being too obnoxious to actually elaborate, was that I didn't feel Jango Fett's presence was necessary given the overall story of the saga, and that it would have been nice to see a new character inhabit the same role. But in the end, the Fett family's presence helps to connect the two trilogies together, like Owen and Beru and the Death Star plans.

    Which I think was Lucas's plan. He is trying to tie the two trilogies together, so people will look upon them as a complete saga. Was it strictly necessary to have Jango Fett? No, but there are a lot of things in the movies that aren't strictly necessary. Some are good, some are bad. I happen to think Jango Fett is a good disposable villain, like Darth Maul (who many people complained was "underused" and "underdeveloped," although he wasn't supposed to be used that much, nor was he supposed to be developed).

    I agree. Unfortunately I feel that GL and I love different things now.

    Very sharp insight. :) I think that, at bottom, that's the main issue here. GL loves different things from you and, as evidenced by their posts, many bashers as well. Does that mean you are right and he is wrong, or vice versa? No, it just means you love different things. But it
     
  9. Shelley

    Shelley Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    Shelly, please don?t listen to the person who posted this. If he/she doesn?t have time to read well thought out opinions, then why join in on a conversation to begin with. Keep doing what you are doing? it?s great

    Thank you, Son_of_Kurtzman. :)
     
  10. Punisher

    Punisher Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 20, 1998
    Remember kids, to LINK your Trilogies, every 20 minutes in every film, because your audience is a bunch of morons or suffers from Attention Deficit Disorder.

    The preceding has been a public service message from Punisher.

    I now return you to the regulary scheduled topic....
     
  11. Obi-Ewan

    Obi-Ewan Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 24, 2000
    I think the films should be looked at for their actual quality and judged by that (or our own individual perceptions of that) than by whether Lucas got what he wanted.

    When some of us criticize the Greedo scene from the special edition, others counter with "that's how Lucas wanted it." First of all, I don't buy that, but even if I did, that doesn't automatically make it the way it should be.

    The original ANH was not Lucas's vision, and not just from a technical standpoint. One reason for the numerous revisions to the old films is that the technology didn't exist to film the earliest drafts. But that lack of technology made him more critical, and more analytical of what the story needed and didn't need. ROTJ didn't need the climax to take place on Coruscant. ANH didn't need a wookiee battle. Many of the things that are now spread out over the series were originally to be in that first film, and if he had had the technology, it's not unlikely that he would have shot the film that way, but each film is better for not being as overloaded as the first script was.

    Another example is Jaws. Spielberg's "vision" was to have more shark, but it's better and more suspenseful without it. So before we automatically say that a movie is automatically good because it represent's the "director's vision" (an abusrd, auteurist notion given the collaborative nature of the medium), we must first ask how good that vision was to begin with.
     
  12. Jedi_Waster

    Jedi_Waster Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 1, 2002
    "I like to write stories, and many times I have put one aside, picked it up months or years later, and rewritten part or all of it."

    I'm familiar with this, I do the same with my scripts - as a result, I've got 3 or four unfinished ones hiding in my computer at home.

    Nice post btw Shelley, pleasure talking with you!
     
  13. TheAnointedOne

    TheAnointedOne Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Nice posts everybody. I enjoy reading what Shelley has to say even though I disagree with most of what she says.

    What I'm really asking with this topic goes out to people who really wanted to see more of GL's vision in the Star Wars movies. I'm wondering are the prequels better to you than the OT because the prequels are more of GL's vision than the OT is?
     
  14. Son_Of_Kurtzman

    Son_Of_Kurtzman Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    ****The attitude suggests to me that if the movie is finished then it's best to just release it, because 'it'll never be complete anyway'. Shortcuts are taken and the final product isn't as good as it could have been.
    In fact, I applaud GL's honesty here, it's probably true and yet most film -makers would try and deny it.****

    I think you are half right here, but I'd like to point out that when I do a shoot for a film that is set on earth, with just a few characters in their little town, I fully expect that the director should get it right the first time. However, the very nature of these epic Sci-Fi/Fantasy films is that the directors take on a lot more than the average film. Creating the rules for those worlds alone make the tasks daunting from the beginning. I didn't fault Ridley Scott for putting out a director's cut of "Blade Runner." I don't fault Lucas for the 'idea' of wanting to improve his movies, but I think some of the execution of the SE's was not good. In particluar, the Greedo scene and the new Jabba the Hut scene. That's just my opinion, but I backed it up by not buying the SE's.

    ****I know, and for all my harping (is that even a word?) GL is indeed the author of this saga and he's an amazing talent. Do you know if there was any pressure on George to get screenplays written for the OT, and what differences were in pressure there were when he sat down to write the PT? I think he set himself an astronomically tough challenge when he chose to do these episodes, he hasn't totally messed the story up which deserves him some respect.****

    I think the even more difficult task was to not have them all written before he started. He cuts it even closer when it takes him a year to write the next installment.

    That said, I know that Lucas has lost a lot of respect from his Star Wars fan base. I can say for myself that I came to be a Star Wars fan by virtue of being Lucas fan. Yes, I saw all of the Star Wars films in the theatre as a kid and teenager, but I pretty much forgot about them until I was in college.

    I've never read a Star Wars novel or a Star Wars comic book, and I have none of the toys I had when I was a kid. A friend in college re-introduced me to the trilogy in '94 or '95 and I bought the boxed set of VHS tapes, with Darth Vader, the Storm Trooper and Yoda on the respective covers. But, when I went to film school (post-undergrad), that was when I really went back to look deeper into the Star Wars trilogy. I may be the only person who can lay claim to the fact that I've seen THX-1138 more times than any of the Star Wars films. Therein lies our big difference: most people here are Star Wars fans, then Lucas fans and for me, it's completely the other way around.

    Maybe that is why I'm so enamoured with TPM. I love the way the guy can envelope you pictorially, with the use of sound and geography. I felt that way about "THX," "Amercan Graffiti" and "ANH" the first time I saw them as an adult. I definitely feel that way about TPM... it is an expansive world, too big for me to grasp the first time, but I was comletely enveloped into it.

    This is not to knock ESB, which I love to. But, ESB is more of a dramatic film, focusing on the characters and their personal development. ANH has a few reflective moments (Tatooine sunset, Obi's cave discussion), but for the most part, it is a sweeping epic of ideas and plot themes. TPM is the same way. Perhaps that's the reason why I didn't enjoy AOTC as much... it was a more dramatic film, focusing on the character arcs, rather than the plot themes that TPM HAD to establish. Perhaps it would have been better to have another director for AOTC, if just for the sake of saga itself. Alas, I still like AOTC a lot, but it is the first Lucas-directed film that I felt didn'thave his overall feel. Mostly because the story just did not fit with his style of directing, which I find innovative and stylistic and totally inspiring. AOTC did not really seem like the kind of film Lucas would direct.

    ****I agree with you, it's not a good attit
     
  15. Son_Of_Kurtzman

    Son_Of_Kurtzman Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    ****What I'm really asking with this topic goes out to people who really wanted to see more of GL's vision in the Star Wars movies. I'm wondering are the prequels better to you than the OT because the prequels are more of GL's vision than the OT is?****

    I think George is a better director than any of the other two guys from the OT. That said, I don't really care who writes the screenplays. If George has the overall vision for the films, but someone like Larry Kasdan comes in and makes the stories tighter, that doesn't bother me. In fact, I think Kasdan's comedy is better than Lucas's, in terms of screenplay specifics. So, for me, the PT may have been better if Lucas had some assistance in the screenwriting process, but the fact that Lucas is directing the PT makes them better for me. I just think he's an amazing director.

    It really depends on what you think determines the vision of the film: the outlined concept? The screenplay? The direction? Would Lucas have to actually be the only one involved in all three for it to be his vision? If so, no, I don't think his vision makes the PT inherently better than the OT.
     
  16. Son_Of_Kurtzman

    Son_Of_Kurtzman Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    It's not that I think that everything Lucas does is perfect. Like a lot of the greatest directors, Lucas's films have many flaws. I like the fact that he is adventurous in terms of ideas, creating worlds of abundant depth, concentrated design of shot structure, confident use of sound, both musical and mixing. I especially like his cyclical technique of bringing all of these elements back again throughout his films and the Star Wars series.

    I was in film school when David Lynch released "Lost Highway." No doubt it's a flawed film, but there is an example of a director stretching out, having the vision to see past his own imperfections and into a style of cinema that has yet to be fully incorporated. Lucas's foresight alone, in terms of sound, visual technology and the way he has changed the film industry, makes him a central figure. I long to have as much vision in my own projects and life? alas, I feel I do not. That said, aside of "The Elephant Man," I kinda have to think that all of David Lynch's movies are flawed, and some of them are greatly uneven, but no less ambitious, interesting or groundbreaking for all of their flaws. And in my estimation, they are no less great for their flaws.

    I felt the same way about "Hannibal" by Ridley Scott. If I were to juxtapose it in terms of "Silence Of The Lambs" and the Hannibal character, in a serial-like context, yeah, the movie stinks. But, that's not the way I saw it. The Hannibal Lector in Scott's film was far different from the Hannibal in Demme's film. I still applaud Ridley Scott for being willing to take on such an awful book and script and make something exciting and believable out of it. Unlike Brett Ratner who utilized clichéd gimmicks for his portrayal of Hannibal, Scott chose to set his cannibal in an operatic world of culture and cultivation, intellectually choosing his victims by virtue of their own personal injustice. Yeah, of course this Hannibal would not seem menacing and ran the risk of bringing down the fear felt when watching "Silence Of The Lambs." On the other hand, the medley of shots, angles and movement traveled eloquently with the music, sweeping me up in this very DIFFERENT story. I also liked the tribute at the end to the absurdity of Gore cinema (eating fried brains).

    "Red Dragon" and "Silence Of The Lambs" were both great books and Harris's "Hannibal," the book, was an utter disgrace. Having read all three of the books, I never felt that Hannibal was a major character in either of the first two, and his mere presence being alluded to was enough to make those texts all the more powerful. Brett Ratner's film may have had Hannibal leaping forward at victims and making silly speeches from behind the prison glass shield, but the character did not connect with me, and I had seen and read everything up to that point. Scott changed my perception of the "Hannibal" book and dared to make a movie that I feel is defective, in terms of writing, but is a brilliant example of a director taking something less than stellar and finding the core beauty of it. Okay, it's not going to go down as a Ridley Scott classic, and I'm not comparing it to "Blade Runner" or "Thelma & Louise." Still, I'd compare Scott's "Hannibal" to Hitchcock's "The Birds" without remorse.

    Is this all to conclude that Lucas's script for TPM is flawed, at its roots, and only saved by his style of directing? No. I'm using two separate examples by other great directors to show that innovation and boldness, in the context of filmmaking, often comes with the flawed territory ? "Lost Highway" being flawed in both the writing and execution, but ultimately, being a triumph in style and experimentation; and "Hannibal" as an example of a ramshackle script, but a directing style that was epic in spite of its flaws.

    Again, to me it is not the flaws that make Lucas a bad director, but the triumphs that make him a great director and a genius in terms of cinematic innovation. I just accept that there will be flaws with Lucas, and I dig what he is doing right, which far
     
  17. TheAnointedOne

    TheAnointedOne Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Dec 2, 2002
    I appreciate what you're saying, and maybe if you look at the PT from a director's eye, you see something different. But from the average movie goer's perspective, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the PT isn't as strong as the OT and the PT happens to be much closer to Lucas' vision. It's hard for me to judge Lucas as a director because I'm not a director. But as a fan, I and many others think that Lucas' vision is not exactly 20/20.

    I just wonder what someone who wants Lucas' vision has to say about the PT. Is it better than the OT?
     
  18. Son_Of_Kurtzman

    Son_Of_Kurtzman Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Well, Annointed, I want Lucas's vision, story-wise. What I was saying was that I think his vision is unique in terms of ideas and his directing style is inimitable. The little comedic bits or parts of dialogue may have been better served by another writer, but I like Lucas's vision for the PT just as much as whoever's vision the OT was. Again, I think Kasdan is a better comedic writer than Lucas, as Jar-Jar probaby wasn't as funny as he was meant to be. Still, I thought Watto was hilarious, so who knows?

    A lot of people have already posted that they like Lucas's vision for the PT as much, if not more than the OT. Do you want people to post how they feel about his vision or do you want people to post who agree with YOU that is vision isn't as good?
     
  19. DrEvazan

    DrEvazan Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 19, 2002
    i wouldnt mind a post about exactly what this "vision" is.

    "What I was saying was that I think his vision is unique in terms of ideas and his directing style is inimitable."

    inimitable? how so? i find his style to be incredibly pedestrian and his choices to be underwhelmingly non-inventive nor filmically challenging. you find his ideas unique while i think they are in many way far more cliched than even the ideas in the serials he is trying to emulate.

    please elaborate on GL's vision and directing style.
     
  20. Punisher

    Punisher Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 20, 1998
    I tend to think that "vision" changes... from time to time. [face_laugh]


    BTW, I don't want to discredit anyone's interests/career paths, but I think part of the appeal of the OT was that you didn't need to know a lot of history... actual history, history of film, film techniques, mythological underpinnings, storytelling, etc., the films were easy to understand.
    They were complex enough that they could get you interested enough to learn about all of these things, but simple enough so you could enjoy them WITHOUT being into all of those things.
    I think the biggest flaw with the PT is that GL uses people's IGNORANCE of 30's serials, mythology, etc. to EXCUSE people's critical view of the films.

    Funny, but I was a child when the OT came out and I understood it just fine... I understand the PT just fine... I just hate it when GL seems to be disrespecting his audience because the didn't have the right "pedigree" to enjoy his films.

    I realize many won't agree with the preceeding, read it over and you should get something out of it, unless you are stupid or something... ;)
    (Okay, I'm kidding, but the above comment, seems to me, is what GL is doing to his audience.)
     
  21. DrEvazan

    DrEvazan Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 19, 2002
    "part of the appeal of the OT was that you didn't need to know a lot of history... actual history, history of film, film techniques, mythological underpinnings, storytelling, etc., the films were easy to understand."

    i agree wholeheartedly. i dont think you need to know those things for the PT either, but you do need to know those things to make up excuses for why a film like TPM seems so vapid. you try and make it look like people missed deeper meanings and subtexts and that is why they did not enjoy the film. film school 101 BS that doesnt mean doodle if the film is still unengaging in the end.
     
  22. Obi-Ewan

    Obi-Ewan Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 24, 2000
    There is one thing Lucas has done that may not seem all that innovative, but only because so many other directors do it today. American Graffiti was one of the first films to intercut different story lines. Granted, other films before that focused on different characters at different times, but it was all related to the main plot.

    Example: The Maltese Falcon. You see Miles Archer get shot, but that ends up going back to Sam Spade. Archer doesn't have his own storyline going on. In another film, you might cut between herous and villains, but the heroes talk about defeating the villains, and the villains about defeating the heroes.

    In Graffiti, there are four storylines, related only by the fact that A) all the characters are friends, and B) one is driving the other's car. But Richard Dreyfuss chasing after Suzanne Somers has nothing to do with Paul LeMat driving some 12-year old around in his car, or with Terry trying to impress girls by driving Steve's car.
     
  23. Son_Of_Kurtzman

    Son_Of_Kurtzman Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    ****inimitable? how so? i find his style to be incredibly pedestrian and his choices to be underwhelmingly non-inventive nor filmically challenging. you find his ideas unique while i think they are in many way far more clichéd than even the ideas in the serials he is trying to emulate.****

    A few of the things find unique about Lucas's style:

    Again, the geography of Lucas's films is immense. One example would be the opening scene of TPM, where within five minutes there are three separate rooms, a ship and six main characters established in a conversation/situation. Yet, through a distinct choice in angle and editing, we are not only NOT confused, but we have established that the space in which Amidala is in is not in the Trade Federation ship, yet, at the same time, we understand that it was the droids who blow up the Republic ship which brought the Jedi, by virtue of orders from Sidious to Nute Gunray. You don?t even know their names yet, and still you understand completely where their loyalties lie.

    Now, I know this doesn't seem like something that should be that difficult to establish. However, as a filmmaker, I know that most directors would not even attempt to confirm this much space in such a short period of time, because it is not only very difficult to conceptualize, but very challenging to get the ideas across sufficiently, so they don?t try. Having just seen the premiere of a film I was 1st Assistant Director on back in July, I noticed a similar example.

    The film was by a very good director, with an overall edgy feel, very non-Hollywood, non-feel-good. In the opening moments, he goes through five houses, with five different characters, trying to capture their reactions to the same piece of news they are hearing on the radio. While the radio announcement makes perfect sense, the total lack of conceptualization, as far as shot geography goes, makes it imperative that these characters be quickly established through a subsequent introductory scene, where they all meet and introduce one another to each other, within the context of the story. It works fine and is not confusing, but showed me how difficult it is to establish a film landscape and characters within the movement of action. Which brings me to my next point.

    Ever since 1977, when "Star Wars" was first being filmed, Lucas had to rely on a puzzle-like method of shooting and cutting his films. In the context of 1977, ILM and other units were matting, using negative plates, etc. in juxtaposition to what was shot already with blue screen and actors. In 2002, we gawk at the extensive use of blue screen for CGI, but a similar use was needed in 1977, only with models being blown up and passes being made on miniatures. If you know anything about filmmaking, which it seems like you do, then you will concede that many shot issues are developed in pre-production, and many of those ideas change on the spot during production. For Lucas to even begin to map out some of the complex puzzles that he is wishing to make complete with the assistance of special effects, he's gotta be thinking really far ahead in terms of pictorial operation. Just to even book a blue screen soundstage and have certain set pieces built within, he's thinking pretty far ahead. That's why I say that visually, he's able to capture a lot without the audience knowing, because he's so good at it. It looks easy and, as you said, "underwhelmingly non-inventive" and "not filmically challenging," but that is precisely what makes it so great.

    Another writer already alluded to the fact that Lucas can lure multiple plots concurrently, which are related only through relationship, not through current action. I also appreciate the way that he can create landscape through sound, especially in ?American Graffiti? by using environmental sound, source music and soundtrack music. The changing timbre of the source music in said film always created a sense of geography and character interaction.

    He seamlessly mixes his worlds of natural sound with his soundtrack world in a swirli
     
  24. Son_Of_Kurtzman

    Son_Of_Kurtzman Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Dr.Evazan wrote:

    ****i wouldn?t mind a post about exactly what this "vision" is.****

    I wouldn't mind either. I already asked, with no reply. Is it that he has to conceive of the story, write the screenplay and direct the film? Is it just that he has to conceive the story? Would it NOT be Lucas's vision if he ad collaboration? I think that is what was being asked originally: does the fact that Lucas took on all of three roles (story, screenplay, directing) make it the best Star Wars film?

    Evazan, you yourself seem to point to that definition, as you constantly go back to how the early drafts don't reflect the same writer as the final shooting script for ANH. Thus, you feel that the version of ANH we have is NOT Lucas's vision, but a combination of his and someone else's. With that other person altering HIS vision so much, that you think that the ghostwriter is more responsible for the success of Star Wars than Lucas is.

    So, I guess Lucas's vision would be his unaltered story, script and directing, with no collaboration or major input with regards to characters or plot.
     
  25. DrEvazan

    DrEvazan Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 19, 2002
    so in essence you have said that lucas is a great director because he directs. what you described is nothing unusual nor unique, nor innovative. these are all skills that any director should be expected to have. wow he can let the audience know what is going on in a scene, what innovation and talent.

    please.

    when i asked what lucas' vison is i didnt mean it so literally. i mean what is he trying to put across in his films? what is he trying to say? if you ask me he isnt trying to say a damn thing beyond "buy this movie".

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.