Exchanging Jar Jar for Gollum

TPM Yoda is an abomination to the world.

 

No I dont think so. JarJar bought clumsiness into TPM. It was because of him that the Queen was able to re-gain Naboo. He notified her of the Gungans, and led her to their secret place.

 

I for one loved Jar jar. Do not know why so many hate him. And I thought he was done flawlessly. Totally interacted well with the real charactres, the environment. I would not want to imagine any other character replacing Jar Jar. No Gullom character for me. Leave him in LOTR.

As for Gullom, I thought he was annoying in TTT. Just as those thought Jar Jar was annoying. I thought Gullom was right there aslo in TTT. Wife who thought Jar Jar was annoying in TPM also thought Gullom was as annoying. But I guess because it is LOTR it is ok to be annoying CGI character. Pretty hypocrytical.

Thought Jar Jar worked great as a SW alien. Was annoyed with Gullum but thought he also interacted well with the characters and his surroundings. But I did like Gullum though in the end, but was just annoying. Both characters were good, I just like Jar Jar better.

And do not know why they made a big deal over Gullom when Jar Jar was the first CGI charcter to interact with actors. Gave that credit to Jackson when it was Lucas who accomplished this first. I mean both Jackson and Lucas did the exact same thing to bring these two charcters to life. Why not give credit to both rather then just one? Just because one movie is more popular then the other, you do not give the other guy credit as well. BS if you ask me. And I thought Yoda in ATOC was done awesomely and there was no actor to give a performance reference too. Think that is more of an accomplishment then Jar Jar and Gullom. Yoda was way better then the Yoda in ESB. The puppet looked just that a puppet. Stiff, rubbery and restricted. AOTC Yoda showed a lot more emotion on his face. Detail was superb. And the fight scene then Jar jar and Gullom combined.

 

I agree with you on the Gollum/Jar Jar thing, Ekenobi.
Jar Jar looks good, and interacts well with the other actor, as with his environment.
Jar Jar and Gollem were both created the same way, they had an actor play the part, and later put in the CG-character. It worked well in both cases.

I also like the AOTC Yoda, he looks a lot like the ESB/ROTJ Yoda, and is certainly better then the TPM Yoda. I never think of Yoda as a CG character in AOTC, because I think his "performance" is good, and the voice completes it.

 

I agree Firman. I knew he was CGI but seeing the movie you forget that he is. The performance is so dead on and it resembles the ESB yoda so well. Even the shaking ears. Excellent job on ILMs part!!

 

Exaaaaaactly.

 

Excuse me? Hehe.

 

And do not know why they made a big deal over Gullom when Jar Jar was the first CGI charcter to interact with actors. Gave that credit to Jackson when it was Lucas who accomplished this first. I mean both Jackson and Lucas did the exact same thing to bring these two charcters to life. Why not give credit to both rather then just one? Just because one movie is more popular then the other, you do not give the other guy credit as well. BS if you ask me.



"Amen." It's because the Academy doesn't like George. They didn't mind back in the late 70s and 80s when he was kicking butt and paving new trails for cimema and VFX. It's a shame how quickly they forget. And what's funny, after all this time GL and ILM are still paving new roads in technology for film. Sure WETA and the guys from Matrix have done some pretty amazing things but people shouldn't forget GL and what he's done for the industry. Nor should they forget those before GL. It's disrespectful."

 

ie, blame everyone else for not being as fascinated with Lucas now, instead of thinking it might be his own fault his "image is tarnished..."

 

I agree BobaFrank. It is disrepectful. All this GL bashing now is ridiculous. All these false claims he is just in it gor the money which is BS. But PJ though can put out three editions of his moives and that is all right! (though I do love PJ and LOTR just makeing a point here). Why the hate for the man? Everyone of the documentaries from the DVDs and the net and the interviews, he seems like a real down to earth, likebale guy. Interviews with other actors seem to enjoy working with him. I thought Portman on the set of TPM called him a big Teddy bear. He loves what he is doing. Does not look like he is some arrogant a**hole. He just took something that was successful and went with it and create this empire. Is it jealousy? I think so. I think people are just jealous of his success. That he came up with things that others did not think of first. Isn't that the American dream? Hell I would like to make millions over something that started as nothing. Every one here would what to have what GL has. I believe GL paved the way for other blockbuster movies to be created and for some reason, except PJ, seem to want to bring GL down. They all seem to think they all started the special effects craze and seem to dis GL. Example. The effects director of the Matrix saying SW is soulless and is nothing but effects, but if you have seen the last 2 Matrix movies it seems he is a hypocryt becasue they were souless and were just effect movies.


But to answer this question. No i Will never imagine a Gullom like character in SW. Jar Jar is fine. Leave him alone!!

 

Why specifically be Lucas to be jealous of? He isn't the only successful artisan out there. Hell, I should be hating Bill Gates because of his success. Maybe I should "hate" Paul McCartney or the Late George Harrison for achieving a level of success I never have.

But I don't, it's not as simple as that. There is no disillusionment in any of those cases. There IS with Lucas though. I don't care about Bill Gates, he could be the richest man in the world (heh), richer and more successful than Lucas, and I still wouldn't care.

I don't "hate" Paul McCartney or the Late Great George Harrison, nor Ringo, nor the Legendary John Lennon. Why? Because I have not been disillusioned by them. Paul has been accussed of revisionist history, particularly with the "Let it Be...Naked" album, and it being the "original way it was meant to be." Given that was the time when the Beatles weren't working well together and barely on speaking terms, and had in fact already broken up, I can buy that. The original Let it Be was "finished" by Phil Spector, who went overboard with the sounds and orchestrations. That's not what they had in mind, but it went out anyway.

The difference is, Paul and Ringo released this new album, BUT STILL ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK FOR THE ORIGINAL. It's a level of respect there. They call it more than just a "roughcut" or an "album in the making," the original Let it Be is still an album, and deserves the respect of one. To call it anything other than a legitimate piece of work is to slap the face of not only the people who produced it and worked on it, but the people who bought it. They acknowledge the work of the original Let it Be and DO NOT DENY IT'S EXISTANCE. They aren't trying to make people buy the "true" version of the album after having bought the one released for years, they leave options available because there's still a respect for the original product, the production crews who spent months working on the original AND music lover who bought the original and appreciated it for thirty years.

 

Well I do not agree. I don't see anything wrong with what Lucas is doing. he is doing things his way. So why should he get ridiculed for that? He made something of hime self. Why should he be hated for that? He is not doing anything to you personally. Why get on him? I think there is some jealousy in the industry towards him.

I also do not think there is anything wrong with going back and making changes to something that he did not like in the original. He now has the technology to make the changes he is not happy with. It is his right to do this. As an artist if he does not want to release the O OT then that is his right. He preferrs the SE.

 

And do not know why they made a big deal over Gullom when Jar Jar was the first CGI charcter to interact with actors. Gave that credit to Jackson when it was Lucas who accomplished this first.

Actually, that's not true; Jurassic Park, Casper and Dragonheart all accomplished that same feat years before.

 

Actually that is true. But I am more referring to actors in those motion suites. but to go further The Abyss started it all.

 

Well I do not agree. I don't see anything wrong with what Lucas is doing. he is doing things his way. So why should he get ridiculed for that? He made something of hime self. Why should he be hated for that? He is not doing anything to you personally. Why get on him?

I've never bought the idea of it being "for himself." Were that the case, then it would have never been released for mass audiences. So yes, he made it for us, the audience, the movie goer. He wanted to express his ideas in the form of film, which he did, AND he did it in a way people would LIKE what he did. How can it be "for himself" if his main objective is to have audiences like his story? Because he wants it to be liked, its foolish to say he doesn't care, cause if he didn't, he wouldn't bother in the medium of film.

I also do not think there is anything wrong with going back and making changes to something that he did not like in the original. He now has the technology to make the changes he is not happy with. It is his right to do this.

As I had said in my previous post, there is a level of disrespect for the people who had been buying the original version for twenty years by no longer respecting the version they grew up with.

As an artist if he does not want to release the O OT then that is his right. He preferrs the SE.

And as the consumer, we can have opinions on his decisions, they're our wallets, it's OUR right.

 

Well, if you want to get technical, even if you just count instances of humanoid CG characters created using humans in MoCap, Terminator 2 and Species used the same trick.

Granted, Lucas pushed the envelope, but he wasn't the original pioneer.

 

If Lucas wasn't the pioneer with cgi then who was?

CGI has been around for a long time. Disney did TRON which was the first big attempt at computers interacting with humans.

In the briefing room on the rebel ship when Mon Mothma makes her "Many Bothans died." speech the hologram of Endor and the DS2 are computer generated.

The Last Starfighter which was done in the mid 80s was the first movie to use cgi exclusively for its space battles.

Willow in 1988 was the first movie to use morphing when Willow is changing Fin Razael back to her human form.

Then the Abyss used the cgi water tentacle in 89'

In 90' T2 took morphing to a whole new level with the T-1000.

93' JP turned the tide on CGI with the dinosaurs.

I think what's in dispute here is CGI Character performance. Draco in Dragonheart(95') may be the first. Then Jabba in the ANH SE(97').

Then you have TPM Jar Jar, AOTC Yoda, and TTT Gollum.

When it comes to CGI character performance I don't see anyone but GL and ILM pioneering in the beginning.

 

Agreed BobaFrank.

 

When it comes to CGI character performance I don't see anyone but GL and ILM pioneering in the beginning.

That statement is disrespectful to the directors of the films that furthered the CGI in film. James Cameron made Terminator 2, not Lucas. It was Cameron's vision ILM brought to life, not that of Lucas. Lucas' vision wasn't in The Abyss, Forrest Gump, Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, the Star Trek films, Batteries Not Included, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Ghost, Backdraft, and others. Crediting Lucas for the furthering of CGI and special effects is to rob the directors of those films of THEIR credit, it's disrespectful as they were actively pursuing film while he was on hiatus or working as a producer. It would be taking credit for heroic driving, I wasn't there, but the hero was driving my car.

 

The first uses of CGI were in "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan", and the red Death Star in the fleet assembly in "Return of the Jedi".

 

Yes but who owns ILM, Lucas! And it was ILM that pioneered cgi. There is not dsirespect to others using CGI. We are jsut recognizing ILM for getting it started. And Lucas created ILM to do SW. So Lucas had something to do with the CGI usage in films. Why are people trying to take away credit from Lucas. he stated the F/X craze and now people are using his company to create there movies or starting up their own company to create thier movies. but it was Lucas who started it with ILM and SW.

 

and the red Death Star in the fleet assembly in "Return of the Jedi".

"I mentioned that. "

 

That statement is disrespectful to the directors of the films that furthered the CGI in film.

"Loco, I know you have a personal beef with me that's why I take your comment lightly. I have a film degree and have nothing but the utmost respect for film and their directors but, it was GL and ILM who pioneered the VFX in these movies and it's not disrespectful nor degrading to the directors of the film by me saying so.

GL owns ILM and has a very good working relationship with most of these directors HIS company has done VFX for. Nobody, exspecially me, is taking anything away from the directors. That's just something you've concocted in your mind to try and be confrontational.

Anyway you look at it, GL and ILM are pioneers in the world of VFX."

BTW, Thanks Ekenobi.

 

Loco, I know you have a personal beef with me that's why I take your comment lightly.

Uhhh...why would I have a "personal beef" with you? I take debating seriously, I don't even get personal, so I don't know where you got that impression.

Anyway, you had implied that Lucas was the driving force behind the prosperity of CG, practically giving him sole credit:

When it comes to CGI character performance I don't see anyone but GL and ILM pioneering in the beginning.

Your point was that his owning ILM earns him that respect, I mentioned that...

Crediting Lucas for the furthering of CGI and special effects is to rob the directors of those films of THEIR credit, it's disrespectful as they were actively pursuing film while he was on hiatus or working as a producer. It would be like me taking credit for heroic driving, I wasn't there, but the hero was driving my car.

Just because he owns it doesn't mean anything, it's giving him kudos based on his name.

 

Yes but who owns ILM, Lucas! And it was ILM that pioneered cgi.

By that logic, any film script written on a PC should be credited to Bill Gates.