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

A little off topic, but here goes. Were Padme's nipples CG'd?

 

LOTR is not a good comparision, GASP!!!! As I said I wasn't really looking for specific answers, but what the heck. Ask anyone on the industry and anything over 200 to 300 shots (or over about 20 min. of VFX) is considered major VFX work. So yes LOTR qualifies as does Spider-Man and many other films. AI didn't have that many shots but a lot of sequences were extremely long, like the flyover frozen NY, sometthing like a continuos 3 min shot. AI had something like 40 min. of VFX. yes I know it doesn't compare to AOTC, but all those films were major VFX efforts.

OK let see:

... LOTR. It's more of a quest/scenary driven peice of work.

And so is Star Wars. Lucas based it on the hero's quest. Take a look at the The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Jopseph Campbell which Lucas used in his research when writing the scripts.

Pearl Harbour was NOT a good movie in general and blatent special effects was the main thing driving the story as well with Armageddon.

Oh I agree completely, especially Armageddon. So you agree that's it not only Lucas. You could easily argue that Armageddon had too many VFX, even though it had tons less than AOTC.

Stuart Little ... They admit that it's CG, they do their bit without being pretentious and yelling "Look at me, look at what I can do!"

I guess you forgot how much Sony and Imageworks hyped that it was the most advanced and realistic CG character at the time. I guess it's easier to point to Lucas and rip im apart even if others are doing it as much and sometimes much worse? But Stuart Little (both films) were great story and FX wise.

A.I. once again it was another ego stroking fest

Wow, in what way was ego stroking?!?! So in your opinion all scifi, fantasy comic book movies are crap because by definition they need to use extensive VFX even though that's the only way to bring them to life? besides have you met anyone in VFX? I have and at least the veterans are the most simple, sincere and great guys I've ever met. Much of the problems with FX can be attributed to directors, studios and producers which think FX and action fests will attract the public. VFX people just are contracted for the work. check out any Cinefex. Or better yet go to the next SIGGRAPH if you are really curious.

the fact remains that SW is about being taken to another place, similar to ours

Well I thought SW has as much in common with fabatasy than SciFi. Many of the references SW makes are taken from classic mythology, just like LOTR. After all we have princesses and queens in distress, noble knight, dark knights, wizards, a mystical force, and fantastic creatures and locales. To me SW is not very close to out world, unless you go to ancient mythology.

As for Spiderman, it couldn't be helped ... the SFX was there when it was needed, and NOT needed when it wasn't

You could have made it with stunt people on wires and delete them or by mocap. Do you know that a lot of the NY buildings were CG? You could argue many of the FX shots were unnecessary but that is the topic of another discussion. There are people that argue that it used more CG than needed. What about that matrix ripoff at the end? Did we need a lot of CG goblin shots? What was the points of huge baloons?

Maybe I'm a bit nitpicking. Anyway not my intention to play devil's advocate. Peace.

 

I agree that nomatter what GL dose different to try to make the movies better. People will still find away to criticism them.

I know I'm late in putting this up, the fact remains that SW is about being taken to another place, similar to ours, yet trapped in our gleeful imagination. I think Lucas ruined a good part of it when he started to produce SFX to "mimic" our reality rather than produce a entirly new reality for us to be lost in. I don't want to see football robots, or a blasted short order chef hugging Obi-Wan. I detested that cause it reminded me of the real world. More on this later.

Ofcource its going to have comparisons. No one can make a entirly new reality, because all ideas are influenced and come from "the world you live in." Anyway how does a four armed alien huging Obi-wan, mimic our reality; in anyway. I don't see any aliens huging or any aliens at all for that matter.
You know what the orignal trilogy was based off our reality also.

 

Is this thread still going on? It's pointless; someone please lock it.

 

If you see no point to it, why read it and then up it?

In the future, PM the mods and let them handle it. There is no need to insult those of us who see a point to this thread openly.

 

... LOTR. It's more of a quest/scenary driven peice of work.

And so is Star Wars. Lucas based it on the hero's quest. Take a look at the The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Jopseph Campbell which Lucas used in his research when writing the scripts.

Point taken. However sometimes the director's/creator's intentions don't exactly pan out on the screen. Here's the main point of LOTR, it was scenary driven because of the book. Even though it did felt a bit on the short side showing the scenary, in effect it did was Star Wars kinda failed to do, keep the scenary to a minimum.

To me Star Wars was never a scenary driven piece of work. Why? Because it was the story that primarily driven it, not the scenary. The scenary was a means to just describe where they are at the time being at least in OT. Instead once we get to TPM and AOTC, we suddenly get huge sweeping landscapes which I feel had no real point in primarily story driven piece of work.

Oh I agree completely, especially Armageddon. So you agree that's it not only Lucas. You could easily argue that Armageddon had too many VFX, even though it had tons less than AOTC.

I'm not necesarily saying that Armageddon had too much special effects. I'm merely stating that it was SFX driven. Unlike SW, movies like Pearl Harbour and Armageddon had storyline second to the action/SFX whereas SW should have story before SFX. It was seriously bizarre when I heard that Lucas said "Jar Jar Binks" and "Anakin's Pod Race" were very important for the TPM.

Stuart Little ... They admit that it's CG, they do their bit without being pretentious and yelling "Look at me, look at what I can do!"

I guess you forgot how much Sony and Imageworks hyped that it was the most advanced and realistic CG character at the time. I guess it's easier to point to Lucas and rip im apart even if others are doing it as much and sometimes much worse? But Stuart Little (both films) were great story and FX wise.

Stuart Little was met with less scruitny yes, however like you mentioned Sony delivered with great FX AND great storyline. Lucas is easy to rip because:

A. He had already created previous films, including TPM which was a SFX-fest.
B. It was building up to this day anyways where we expect to be wowed.
C. He catered to our high expectations in the first place, along with his increibly large group of fans buidling up hype like no other.

Stuart Little had NEVER this amount of coverage or hype, even if Sony tried. It's basically the difference between criticizing a senator and a president, there will obviously different fine tooth combs we use to criticize them, but they essentially do the same thing.

A.I. once again it was another ego stroking fest

Wow, in what way was ego stroking?!?! So in your opinion all scifi, fantasy comic book movies are crap because by definition they need to use extensive VFX even though that's the only way to bring them to life?

Don't assume that much. It was ego stroking cause Speilberg essentially hacked Kubrick's idea to be a vessel for his typical SFX requirement. I mean take a step back and look at Blade Runner. It had ancient special effects, but ultimately it did not rely on it. I'm not saying that every single movie from now on should use ancient effects; use what's new, however don't be pretntious with it.

besides have you met anyone in VFX? I have and at least the veterans are the most simple, sincere and great guys I've ever met. Much of the problems with FX can be attributed to directors, studios and producers which think FX and action fests will attract the public. VFX people just are contracted for the work. check out any Cinefex. Or better yet go to the next SIGGRAPH if you are really curious.

I never blamed the FX guys. Like I said and as with most other people I blame the directors. Another director I can blame for too much SFX, David Fincher's Panic Room. I really didn't need incredibly

 

Al,

I agree completely with what you have said about AOTC. I think its the worst of the bunch IMO.

 

The_Porridge_Boy:

You make excellent points. I disagree with some but now seeing your explanations and where you are coming from I understand. When you talked about ego stroking you didn't mention who. I agree most of the times it's directors ego trips. I love AI and I liked Spider-Man and LOTR. My point was that one could argue that other movies have excessive FX. At times it seems it's hip to rip AOTC and Lucas and praise Jackson and Spider-Man; seemed to me a bit one sided. And as you point out many fans built up this huge anticipation but that's their problem. I always do the "mom" test, can be best friend, uncle, girlfriend, etc. someone that likes movies but it's not a huge movie freak fan or knows much about the Internet hupe, etc. It's interesting to hear when you ask them questions like those posed here. My mom was very eager to see the prequels and she liked them a lot and didn't believe they were FX fests. On the other hand other friends felt the other way so in many cases it's a matter of appreciation.

Yes I agree with you that SW should be story driven. I dind't mind the extensive vistas since they provide a setting for the events. After all if your are talking about galactic events make them feel like we have tons of different places in a galaxy ;-). Other films that have just a few set pieces feel constrained. I guess it's a fine balance.

I don't know what you mean by Spielberg hacking Kubrick. All the major FX pieces, Rouge City, flooded NY and frozen NY, were extensively storyboarded by Kubrick and in his script treatment. Back in the early 90s Kubrick called Dennis Muren to see how could the mechas and flooded NY could be achieved. I could probably find the refernces. Spielberg just put his own touches to them. Maybe you don't like the story, that's fine, but the major FX were long conceived by Kubrick.

Blade Runner is an interesting example since you neded the FX to setup the future LA. Even more amazing that there are less than 90 FX shots in the film, but it feels it has a lot more than that. It erally is a classic and a masterpiece story and FX wise.

For AOTC I had some complaints but on other parts. I didn't mind the sports too much and I thought the holographic commercials were fine (Wwas that present in McQuarrie's original concepts?), but some of the jarring things were like the pop culture references by C3PO or much of his dialog at the end. Didn't mind the diner, though your point about the bar is excellent, but hey also everyone has got a place to eat.

Don't know what you meant by Batman not fooling anyone. Spider-Man was excellent but I thought some of the FX were too jaring. Even my mom, who usually doesn't notice all that stuff felt so too. Could it have been done with wires, probably (look at the atrocious trend in many movie, like the empty Charlie's Angel's). Like the other thread, people complaining about the CG clonetroopers. What about the CG Spider-Man in many scenes trying to duplicate a human. Like those shots overhead when he starts jumping the buildings?

Anyway I guess we actually agree on most points though we have a few differing points. And that's what I like instead of mosts posts which are just flames, this sucks, this rules, etc. but never take time to back up their opinions with intelligent and calm discussion. Nice talking to you, peace .

 

The thing is, Lucas has always been criticized of making films that are nothing more than a special effects showcase held together by thin stories. This is what the critics said about the original trilogy and it's what they're saying about the new films. Many of you forget that when A New Hope was first released, the effects looked just as busy and over the top as some of you think the new films are.

I remember seeing A New Hope during its initial run and feeling overwhelmed by all the laser bolts and whizzing spaceships. I mean, the film felt like it was moving a mile a minute because my senses were getting hammered with so many unprecented images. It was mind blowing! Every scene was filled to the brim (by 1970's standards) with special effects and fantastic imagery. Years later watching the movie on those new fangled VHS machines, I was still finding things I had never noticed before because there was just so much to take in.

It's funny just how sedate the film seems now that I've seen it countless times over the past 20+ years, but watching the sometimes overwhelming imagery of the prequel films reminds me of the exact same feelings I had in 1977. Things haven't changed quite as much as you think they have, my friends.

----------

AL, I'm sorry you took my obviously general comments so personally; however, your post wasn't the one that inspired me to say what I did so I'm not sure why you assumed my comments were directed specifically at you.

 

Finally a person who doesn't act like a compete fanboy.

I'm not going to take this discussion any further cause afterall it'll just ruin the peace and I'll just be an ass anyways, but just to clarify some of my points.

I think the main reason that people are ripping Star Wars is that it's a first degree product. It had no real adaption or such such as Spiderman which started out as a comic and LOTR which started out as a book. Plus the fact that this is a very specilized icon of pop culture where it has often bad stereotype being attatched to it. The works like Spiderman and LOTR seem to have a broader audience, heck sometimes LOTR is even studied in Universities. However it also is the fact that the acting was pretty bad whereas Spiderman and LOTR seemed a bit more convincing. When I saw LOTR, the scenary brought tears to my eyes and my heart literally swelled, but that's biased.

Don't know what you meant by Batman not fooling anyone. Spider-Man was excellent but I thought some of the FX were too jaring. Even my mom, who usually doesn't notice all that stuff felt so too. Could it have been done with wires, probably (look at the atrocious trend in many movie, like the empty Charlie's Angel's). Like the other thread, people complaining about the CG clonetroopers. What about the CG Spider-Man in many scenes trying to duplicate a human. Like those shots overhead when he starts jumping the buildings?

What I meant by the Batman thing is that a lot of people assumed that Spiderman would suck in the acting department cause afterall, well acted comic-adaptions are far from many nowadays, especially when Batman had sort of made it's credibility go into the toilet. However, on a side note, hope Batman Year One pans out well. However Spiderman was good cause it didn't take the new Batman formual by stuffing as many trademark bad guys into the show and trying to make an action film with Batman qualities. Spiderman was Spiderman with movie qualities.

Yeah I was kinda disappointed by the fact of Spiderman hardly being a actual actor or stunt double, kinda makes the entire "Training" with Dafoe and Maguire that mentioned in internviews moot since it was SO small of them actually doing the work and just CG, like the roof jumping scene. However I have no problem with the clone trooper war EXCEPT for the obvious CG Clone Trooper Commander talking to Yoda, and on a story stand point how I hardly had any empathy for ANY side in the Droid/Clone battle. There seemed to be no apparent real goal except a mindless battle, but that's expected and welcomed.

Steve

 

"A little off topic, but here goes. Were Padme's nipples CG'd?"

Thank you! At last somebody raises an important issue for intelligent debate. AL would do well to take some pointers from you.

I believe it was just cold on the ship, but I wouldn't put it past Lucas to use some CG enhancement.

 

However I have no problem with the clone trooper war EXCEPT for the obvious CG Clone Trooper Commander talking to Yoda...

Obvious? Frankly, I still think most of the clones are actors in costume and Lucas is just yanking our chain by telling us they're all CGI.

 

>>>I would much rather have prefered to see the droid control ship raid than a Jedi Fighter taking off into space from a stupid hyper ring - TWICE. This simple CGI 'WOW' had Obi-Wan and Mace's scene about Anakin's fondess for Padme cut to make it work. I'd rather have that scene than a CGI hyperdrive ring.<<<

If there were no hyperspace ring, they would still have a similar shot of Obi coming out of hyperspace to approach Kamino and later the rings of Geonosis. The ring is just a cool added touch, and it adds nothing to the running time. I guarantee you nothing was cut because of the hyperspace ring.


>>>Well let me retract and say establishing shots then. And there was about two or three when there could have been one. As the Jedi Starfighter approaches and lands, I got the idea that it is a rainy planet made up of water. What was the point of adding an aiwha flying out of the water and AGAIN establishing the rainy/wet planet scene?<<<

I haven't seen the movie in like two months, sadly. I can't remember exactly when those establishing shots occured, so it's hard to argue for them. But really, they take a matter of seconds, and at most there were only three shots. It's not like Lucas put in another establishing shot and said "crap, this one five-second establishing shot has made the running time too long. We better get rid of this 15-minute 'Padme's family' sequence".

Just as much time was probably "wasted" on establishing shots in the OT.

 

>>>I would much rather have prefered to see the droid control ship raid than a Jedi Fighter taking off into space from a stupid hyper ring - TWICE. This simple CGI 'WOW' had Obi-Wan and Mace's scene about Anakin's fondess for Padme cut to make it work. I'd rather have that scene than a CGI hyperdrive ring.<<<

Good grief... Now someone is complaining about the hyperdrive ring. Pretty sad.

 

People will complain about anything.
It gives them something to do.

 

If there were no hyperspace ring, they would still have a similar shot of Obi coming out of hyperspace to approach Kamino and later the rings of Geonosis. The ring is just a cool added touch, and it adds nothing to the running time. I guarantee you nothing was cut because of the hyperspace ring.

Actually a scene WAS cut because of the hyperspace ring. A scene I feel was more important to the story than the way a Jedi Starfighter takes off.

I used two specific examples but there are others. They may only be 10secs at the most, but add these shots up and you start to see that important scenes (like Padme and Dooku discussing Naboo's treaty) would have been much better to see in the total time.

 

What I meant by the Batman thing is that a lot of people assumed that Spiderman would suck in the acting department cause afterall, well acted comic-adaptions are far from many nowadays, especially when Batman had sort of made it's credibility go into the toilet.

I just wanted to point out that "Road To Perdition" is in fact a "comic book movie". It's based on a graphic novel, just over 300 pages. I think it's gotten generally positive reviews with lots of praise for its high caliber cast.

As Hollywood mines the superhero stuff, I have a feeling that they'll also be looking at other material in the comic book world, including the more serious and mature offerings such as RTP.

 

Star Wars = 100-200 page movie script
LOTR = 600+ page detailed novel

Star Wars = PG
LOTR = PG-13

Star Wars = sci-fi
LOTR = fantasy

Star Wars = 2.5 hours
LOTR = 3+ hours (the uncut of FOTR is 208 minutes and The Two Towers is 3hrs 14mins)

That gives LOTR about four chances to be better than the PT, right? It depends on what you are looking for. LOTR is the ultimate fantasy; make no mistake. Star Wars has fantasy elements but is more of a sci-fi series.

Lucas directed Episode II off of a 100+ page movie script. Peter Jackson directed LOTR off of one of the most heraled fantasy novels *cough* ever. Had Episode II been a full fledged novel like LOTR, well, maybe it would have been as good/better than FOTR.

But it isn't. The closest thing is the film novel, which is really good.

Not to mention- LOTR gave everyone something new... much like the original Star Wars did. Now, we are on our FIFTH Star Wars film. Keeping everyone's freshness and interest in the new films is hard. Jackson comes out and gives us something we've never seen before, and it's great. So, with that in mind- it's not fair to compare LOTR with Star Wars at all.

Personally, I like Star Wars more. I'll admit that the FOTR book is much more diverse and detailed than all of the Star Wars films- but that's okay- because Star Wars was designed for cinema and LOTR was just a really long book some creative genius wrote decades ago.

You can pack virtually anything and everything you want into a novel. Why? The novel can be as long as it wants. 50 pages, 500 pages, 5000 pages- and if you like it enough, you'll read it- no matter how long it is.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote the book- created species, languages, astounding locations, many characters- and in those hundreds of pages, well, he had an endless amount of freedom.

George Lucas has 2 hours of film.

And IMO, what Lucas did with his minimal amount of detail (in respect to LOTR), I think he gave us A LOT. I mean, for Episode II just to be a film- with no super novels or anything like that; I mean, geez. It is PACKED. It has species, languages, awesome locations, many many characters- I just think it is amazing what Lucas done with a few movies.

So... why is everyone trying to compare Star Wars to Lord of the Rings? They are completely different. They share completey different maturity levels. Heck, they aren't even in the same genre!

I guess you could say that LOTR is better because it's more mature. Well, given that the movie was NOT made for children and Star Wars IS made for children- yeah, well I'd say so.

As for the effects, LOL, uhm- did anyone else watch the behind the scenes stuff on the FOTR DVD? Obviously not. Peter Jackson went on for several minutes about a new program they developed in which they can make hundreds of computerized soldiers fight each other- I believe the program was called "Massive." Anyway, all they had to do was open Massive and create hundreds of CGI troops and make them fight each other. Every character on the program has extensive A.I. and can perform different battle techniques that other characters could not.

Also, Jackson was talking about how they made HUGE models and just added in CGI characters.

The Gollum in The Two Towers, Jackson says, is the most diverse, active CGI character ever created for a film. Hm, now, where have I heard THAT before?

Meesa no clue.

While Lucas does use a lot of CGI, well, so does Peter Jackson. Is that okay? DEFINETLY. If I were creating a fantasy environment, heck yeah, I'd be on CGI and you couldn't pull me off. Both directors use CGI just as much as they need to. Peter Jackson's movie sets were built- however, I'd like to see him build Coruscant. Kamino.

Lucas' plot is DEPENDANT on CGI, and that is why he uses it so. The end battle of Episode II called for a little green thing to lightsaber fight Chris Lee. Could they have done that without CGI? No.

Lucas' huge clone battle and arena sequences could NOT have been made without extensive CGI. It is just impossible.

Most things we see

 

NO.

being homeless makes life so simple.

 

Ummm...LOTR gave us something new?!!!

That wasn't the movie I saw.

 

There is a HUGE difference between storytelling and good directing.'

The latter, he is NOT very good, the storytelling part, he is Awesome, still IS.

If there is nothing else that conviences you he is a great story teller, the who really is Sifo-Dyas mystery, and why Yoda hear Qui-Gon's voice are obvious tell-tell signs he is a Great storyteller!

But, don't get confused, he is just not great in directing actors, and SPecial Effect wouldn't have mattered, it's NOT him who sit on the computer composing images, that job is ILMs.

I suggest GL should be the storyteller, exec Producer, approve things for episode III, like he did for Empire, but let Steven Spielberg HELM it!

 

This is a muppet version of Yoda.

This is the CG version...any questions?

 

"Ummm...LOTR gave us something new?!!!"

Maybe you live near a Balrog, but I'd never seen one before.

 

Pooja, one thing Star Wars is FANTASY and never Science Fiction, its not even close.
Lucas has said this on many occasions.

And QueenDorme now you are just complaining for the sake of it.

There is nothing wrong with Hyperspace ring or the establishing shots of Kamino.

*yawn*

 

I guess all establishing shots need to be removed from the Star Wars films.

It never bothered me that Courscant had those things. Remember, we never saw these things in OT, so we can't really say that it's uncommon.

As to scenes like Padme's family, he was told that it looked really out of place in the Star Wars universe. And the trial scene might not have worked for him. All cut scenes come from being too long or not good enough on film.