Has Lucas become more concerned with special effects than telling a story?

Does anyone else find it odd that almost twenty years ago, Lucas is quoted as saying "A special effect is just a tool, a means of telling a story, a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing," and recentley he's been quoted as saying, "the film doesn't rest in the dialouge, it rests in the visuals?" As much as I love AOTC, I believe George Lucas is more impressed with what he can show us than what he can make us feel.
LOTR director Peter Jackson seems much more interested in telling a good story. I think this is proven in the fact the Jackson is using every trick in the book (minitures, angles, etc.), much like Lucas did with the OT, while lately Lucas seems to generate everything via computer. What does everyone else think?

 

I think the story is good, and don't really care about the special effects-So long as they do what they were meant to accomplish, that's great, and I don't really care what methods were used to create them. (IMO, hating something that is made by computers in a fictional story is just silly; it isn't real anyway.)

 

Actaully George Lucas's mastery in story telling is in fact throught visuals. so there is not really any contradiction here.
What I mean is his use of the right colors, textures and whatnot in every scene, and escpeccially with the music that he has JW combine with it.

That is part of the phycology of stroy telling

 

Lucas just can't win. He heavily relied on CGI effects to create one of the most visually stunning films in SF cinema history, and he's accused of sacrificing the story for the effects.

On the other hand, had Lucas used more traditional effect techniques, everyone would say that he was stuck in the late 70s/early 80s, that his films used cheesy, fake-looking effects, and that he had failed to keep up with the state of the art in technology.

Personally, I loved the special effects in AOTC. I do think the story seemed a bit "rushed" at times, but the overall content was quite good, in my judgement.

 

I think your wrong. Go watch the behind the scenes documentaries at the Official Site and tell me George Lucas isn't using every trick in the book. He's got tricks people have never even heard of. ILM had to write tons of new software to even complete the work on this movie.

And you're misinterpreting his quote about visuals. What he said is you can watch any SW movie without sound and still know what was going on. The dialogue isn't necessary for someone to understand the SW universe.

And your comment about LOTR. Peter Jackson didn't write the story. He's got great source material from a classic fantasy book. He's taking everything from Tolkien and just filming it. He's not creating anything new.

 

Sure GL loves special effects and he said himself he's a visual director but he still has a story to tell. And he's telling that story but the problem is the story is not getting a good acting job by the actors. It's mostly the directors fault cause he makes the final decision but since GL doesn't like directing actors all that much the story suffers for that.

Oh well great visual and action with okey acting is good enough for me. I can't ask for a perfect movie. can i?

 

In GL's quote, he probably meant that a picture is worth a thousand words. His montages in the trailers tell the story better than dialogue ever could. The fact that AOTC dwelled in Naboo and on Anakin/Padme proved that he's more interested in the characters and story than the visuals. But I'm sure that he spends alot of time on the CG stuff because it's the most expensive, and it's what sells today.

 

I dont like being a 'flammer' or a 'basher' but I am really sick of threads like this...




~ICeBReaKeR

 

I don't feel that GL is sacrificing the story for the visuals, but I do feel he is sacrificing the audio (sound effects and music) for the visuals.

 

He's not sacrificing the story, he still has a great story to telll, but I do think he's getting over-enthusiastic about his wall to wall bluescreen backgrounds and CG characters, and because of his and McCallum's desire to push ILM to it's limits, he's neglecting the other duties of a director and scriptwriter.

Just look at the AOTC DVD: All the documentaries are about visual and sound effects. Thers nothing in there which discusses the actors, the script, the cinematography... NOTHING! That pretty much sums up Lucas' priorities.

I think AOTC is an awesome achevement in Special effects, but I also think one should not over-do it. Regardless of whether or not ILM is able to do wall-to-wall CGI, they should sill build some physical sets, and simpl expand with models and CG. Why?

2 things: It gives the actors a bit more to work with. They can actually see and touch something, which is much better than being stuck alone in a blue screen room. Secondly, no matter how good the SFX are, our mind can still subconciously tell when somehting is fake. The more CG there is, the more this feeling grows. If you merge sets+models+CG, this feeling dissapates. For example, I love the last 40 minutes of the film. I think, pacing wise, that section is perfect. However, I do get that nagging feeling in the back of my head that it isn't real and sometimes looks like a computer game.

One thing which truly impressed me however were the CG characters. I was deeply sceptical about Yoda, and, although there are still a few things whcih could be improved, ILM totally won me over. The CG characters in this film are all perfect: Jar JAr looks and moves better than ever, Watto, Taun-We, Lama Su, Dexter, the Clones! they are all superb (although the final shot of the clones on Coruscant looks a bit too CG).

So my opinion is that, its great that ILM is being pushed to the limit, doing things which have never been done, but I think they shouldn't use Starwars as an effects showreel. Tone it down just a little bit George! And concentrate on your script and actors. If you want to film in blue screen rooms which will eventually be huge Arenas, you need to help your actors a bit more.

Thats just my opinion....I sense the gushers coming my way, so I will promptly withdraw...

*runs away*

 

I loved AOTC!
If someone asked me to sum up LOTR, I'd say, "An evil lord who created a ring to control middle earth was killed 2000 years ago. Now, to prevent his power spirit from being reincarnated, a group made of different species must destroy that ring at the very place where it was created."

ANH: "A group of freedom fighters rebel against an evil galatic empire intent on ruling the galaxy with an iron fist"

I couldn't sum up AOTC so precisely. The story went too many ways. I think AOTC could have been streamlined a bit more so the story is simply about good vs. evil or the increase of the dark side or anakin's fall to the dark side. I do agree that GL could spend more time on the story itself and let the special effect support the plot.

I know i'm being an armchair quarterback here. I still love every moment of AOTC though, can't wait for the dvd.

 

I can't see a contradiction. Star Wars was always as much about Special Effects as it was about story. What's wrong with that? Star Wars is a thrill ride so it needs thrills - would you accuse the constructor of a rollercoaster of adding too many loops and not enough story?
Star Wars is not LOTR, it's an entirely different approach of entertainment. LOTR is all about story and the details of the world while Star Wars is the modern-day Falsh Gordon - a big extravganza that's meant to give you things you've never seen before, it's meant to be a bit cheesy and corny but that's why we all love it

So many scenes (even in the OT) are there purely for the purpose of showing off a cool effect. There's never a need in the story for Jabba to be a big fat slug that needs to be operated by 28 puppeteers. There's no need in the story for the AT-AT's other than to show a great effect. What's wrong with it? Nothing! For some reason some of us think they don't can't admit that they love the effects (often for their own sake). I love Special Effects films. Period.

 

I loved the movie; however
Hayden is not a very good actor.
His lines seemed very forced and dry "I know how much you hate flying master"
He talks in an annoying monotone voice. He is nothing like the Anikin we see in TPM, I think it's kind of sad. He seems to have lost his zeal or something. i didn't expect that.

 

Without the special effects Lucas wouldn't of been able to show us how large the Star Wars Universe is. So I don't feel Lucas is sacrificing the story for the visuals.

 

Peter Jackson is telling someone else's story. Big difference.

 

Peter Jackson is telling someone else's story. Big difference.

What's the difference then? The majority of all directors tell someone else's story. I don't see how this has anything relevant to do with being more (or less) concerned with special effects than telling a story.

In my opinion, I don't think Lucas is trying all that hard to tell a story, otherwise he wouldn't have forgotten to give AOTC a climax.

By the way, here's how I capsulize the film:

"Jedis Obi and Ani follow Fett into title battle. PG."

 

Tokyo:
And what kind of climax do you want?
You'll never get another "I am your Father" moment.
The only climax you'll possibly get is in Episode 3 when everything is finished.

And there is a big difference between telling someone elses story and what Lucas is doing. He isn't bound to the restrictions people like Peter Jackson are. He can do anything and everything to his story.

And to anwer the questio of this thread here is a quote I have from the man himself:

"I'm a visual filmmaker as oppose to a literal filmmaker, so the movie does rest on the dialogue it rests in the visuals." - Taken from the A-Z of Star Wars Episode 2 screened here in the UK on ITV

 

Effects shots created: 2817
Effects shots used: 2000
Shots in the film: 2161
Minutes of CG animation: 70

You be the judge.

 

SidiousDragon, George did build sets and augment them with CG and models.

Also, it is FOOLISH to waste most of your budget building huge sets, when you can minimalize and achieve the same desired through visual effects.

For example, why build an actual clone factory set when the actors don't interact with that environment? Lucas and co. built the nightclub and Padme's apartment because actors actually need to interact with those sets. The sets that don't need that kind of interaction were done with CG and models. To not do it this way is a waste of money.

 

The Pt should be called the ILM triology because it was primarily them who gave these films their flaws, George should just go back to the way he did things in hte old days!

 

No because the OT has special effects and they are considered the best

 

I always thought the point of waiting 16 years to do the prequels was because it was too grand and epic to work well with OT technology. As far as I can see it's still all about the story, it's just that the story events and locations NEED the special effects in order to work (e.g. the arena battle). AotC is a great combination of story and effects as far as I'm concerned. The effects are not more important than the story, it's just that the story needs them in order to be put on screen convincingly.

 

Has anyone watched TPM DVD with the commentary on it? Go ahead. And while you do, just keep a small tally of how many times some effect was mentioned and how many times something plot driven was mentioned. You will see how important effects are to Lucas and his team over the plot and story, and apparently how important he thinks they are to us as well.

 

Looks like we found another candidate for the "What's the most ridiculous complaint you've heard" thread.

LOTR director Peter Jackson seems much more interested in telling a good story. I think this is proven in the fact the Jackson is using every trick in the book (minitures, angles, etc.), much like Lucas did with the OT, while lately Lucas seems to generate everything via computer.

Lucas didn't "generate everything via computer" as so many people like to ignorantly claim. Attack Of The Clones had more minatures and models than any other film to date, and there were many, many detailed sets (Lars' family homestead and garage, Mos Espa, Palpatine's office, Padme's apartment, nightclub interior, cargo ship interior, etc.) Far from simply generating everything in the computer, Lucas used every trick in the book and then some!

And for my money, Attack Of The Clones (and even The Phantom Menace for that matter) was more enjoyable than Peter Jackson's rather loose interpretation of Tolkien's literary masterpiece which felt like classic literature for the MTV generation.

The thing you also forget is that A New Hope was initially criticized for being nothing but an effects show with a thin story slapped on the top. However, once the spectacle of the visual effects wore off, people began to realize there was some steak underneath all the sizzle. What has given the Star Wars saga its timeless appeal are the characters and the story, and the new films are no different.

There is a lot of symbolism and layers to the new films that the orignals can never hope to match, and my fear is that Lucas is making the new films too good, which will make the second half of the saga seem rather simple and plain in comparison.

 

Both AOTC and LOTR told good stories. And both George Lucas and Peter Jackson did so with interesting characters, a first-class plot and great visual effects. Enough said.