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

ST How the Three Directors Work

Discussion in 'Sequel Trilogy' started by VaderRulesLife, Oct 13, 2015.

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

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    I would argue the same about JJ.

    Then they could just as easily have respect for JJ (the ones that I don't know, obviously; I admittedly know more of the mainstream film community than the 'Festival panellist' type). The point is that most film critics of this type acknowledge that film can't be mimicked and still be regarded as a critical success - so they would have a massive amount of respect for JJ as a massive talent. My point was critical respect, which is different - which is the type of respect we were discussing.

    They have respect for the innovations of Avid and the innovations of digital technology. These are all hugely important to the diversification and artistry within the filmmaking process. So yes this community has a huge amount of respect for these innovations.
     
  2. Edgar Allen Poe Dameron

    Edgar Allen Poe Dameron Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Feb 7, 2015
    I'm not as concerned about JJ being a great filmmaker in general as I am being a great filmmaker for Star Wars. As of yet I've seen nothing that really concerns me. However that could change once I see the finished product. He makes fun sci-fi action movies and that's what Star Wars is, for the most part. I really enjoyed the first trek reboot which was very character driven. JJ is good with characters which is what Star Wars should be, first and foremost. It's not about the space battles, the force, the creatures, the special effects, it was always about the characters and it was the reason, I THINK, the prequels failed miserably, whereas JJ should hopefully shine.

    This theory could all go out the window if the movie is bad. As for the other two directors, I know really nothing about either outside of their two biggest movies, being Looper and Jurassic World respectively. Both of which I enjoyed so I have no opinion on their potential to be great at Star Wars or if they'll fail miserably. This whole continuing the Star Wars saga is a gamble in and of itself with so much riding on it and a rabid fanbase that won't be completely satiated no matter what direction this trilogy goes.
     
    TK327 and Red_Leader_313 like this.
  3. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011

    Thanks for the condescension. I'm not an idiot, and while film is completely subjective (something you should learn), I am actually qualified in this area (I didn't want to have to mention it, but can't stand being told I'm an idiot), so don't act like you have some superior critical eye. For th record it is only as good as SW in my opinion, of the list you mentioned - still a great film though. The fact you put SW in the same list as 'The Godfather'... well...
     
  4. Edgar Allen Poe Dameron

    Edgar Allen Poe Dameron Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Feb 7, 2015
    Star Wars is better than Godfather IMO. I never understood the appeal of those movies. Now I don't have a Masters in film but I knows whats I like
     
    Rabs, TK327 and Red_Leader_313 like this.
  5. Red_Leader_313

    Red_Leader_313 Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 30, 2014
    And you would lose.

    I doubt that most critics would argue that film can't be mimicked. If this is the case, how would you explain Pulp Fiction winning the award at Cannes?

    Of course, I've already offered an answer, which is that Pulp Fiction referenced other films in a creative and interesting way, whereas Abrams is lifting techniques to create the same tone and feeling: he is copying Spielberg to create a Spielberg-ian tone.

    You're discussing "types" of respect, yes, but one of my larger points is that it is a mistake to try and create a false binary here between groups of critics. I'm sure we all know some pretentious snob out there who dislikes Star Wars simply because he feels like he is supposed to in order to be considered "valid." But most people who know what they're talking about would look at this guy like the idiot he most surely is.


    Wouldn't the same snobby film critic type person believe that digital tech is the death of cinema, and insist that films be made on film? I mean, that's where the discourse is right now.

    And while Lucas was an early champion of digital filmmaking, don't assume it wouldn't have happened without him, or even conflate the type of work he was doing with the sort of low-budget digital filmmaking that followed.
     
  6. Rabs

    Rabs Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 15, 2014
    I agree with you.
     
  7. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    And that's a perfectly fine opinion. But people shouldn't act like you're an idiot if you don't think that. There is literally no objectivity in art.

    You realise the arrogance in this?

    Almost every filmmkaer has done this. Almost except Tarantino.

    Of course disagree wit him, but he isn't an idiot. They have valid criticism.

    No, not really. There are many progressive 'snobs' who acknowledge it's positives for the artform.

    Yes, but he did innovate, so they respect him. The low-budget films required George's innovations.
     
  8. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Like I say, I think any argument you have, or had, has been terminally undermined... because it's difficult to argue the pros and cons of something when so diametrically opposed, and unable to agree a benchmark on what constitutes 'good art'/a 'great film'. And it's not like you are trying to argue that 'all entertainment is art' or 'all art is equal' (which I could understand) because clearly you have a strong opinion on things you believe to be demonstrably better... and I'm sure you'd be stating the same if I was trying to argue that Twilight or Batman and Robin (or whatever you'd deem to be 'poor') was equal to A New Hope, Bladerunner, The Searchers (or whatever you'd deem to be 'good'). The thing is, you yourself come across as being quite elitist, in terms of what constitutes good and bad, and I just think you have made your elitism appear rather suspect.
     
    Red_Leader_313 likes this.
  9. Rabs

    Rabs Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 15, 2014
    The difference between good art and bad art is really quite simple. If I like it it's good. If I don't it's bad.;)
     
    Skaddix likes this.
  10. Blake Starstrider

    Blake Starstrider Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Apr 19, 2015
    So essentially PJ is arguing that since Abrams has yet to make one of the 25 best movies of all time he isn't good enough to direct Star Wars? Makes sense.
     
    DarthPhilosopher likes this.
  11. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011

    Wait, the guy who essentially said I was an idiot for thinking ST09 was 'great' just call me elitist?

    [​IMG]

    And I know we can't have an objective standard - that is why I was utilising the ratings.
     
  12. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 31, 2013
    I'm not even sure he'd be in the best Star Trek or Mission Impossible film list... :)
     
  13. Rabs

    Rabs Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 15, 2014
    If I was elitist I'd smoke really long cigarettes.
     
  14. Red_Leader_313

    Red_Leader_313 Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Sure, you can say that it's an arrogant statement, and I wouldn't really argue with anyone who looked at it as such in isolation.

    But the thing is, I know Jaws really well. I know Hitchcock really well, and I know the argument I would make re: Super 8 and Spielberg and how it would miserably fail if one were trying to do the same thing with Jaws. It's just not an apt comparison. Ray Charles could see the Spielberg influence on Super 8. If we were having this conversation anywhere but a message board it'd probably be going pretty differently.

    You do understand that exactly 100% of Tarantino's movies are ripped off from the genre cinema he grew up watching, and that about half of Pulp Fiction is built from references to other films, right? Taking it a step further, the layered, self-referential discourse in Pulp Fiction is a large part of why critics adore it.

    This is the third time I am saying this now: the difference between Spielberg using a blocking cue he saw in a Kurosawa movie, Bigelow copying a piece of music from There Will Be Blood, or some other filmmaker lifting a shot he likes from some other film and what Abrams is doing is that Abrams is deliberately trying to recreate Spielberg's whole style and tone. Every filmmaker is inspired by and learns from every movie they see, sure, but Abrams went ten steps beyond this. The reason it is worth isolating this particular film is that it is by far his most original.

    Claiming to like or dislike something in an effort to conform to group-think is not a valid criticism. At best, it denotes insecurity, at worst, stupidity.

    But in this magical black and white world where critics fall into distinct camps, doesn't it have to be all or nothing? Aren't they supposed to only like Cameron because he's an innovator and not because he's made some damn good movies, that are good independent of whether or not there's some new special effect at work?

    I would agree that many critics recognize that digital media has made cinema a more accessible art form and has allowed for new voices to emerge while still acknowledging the need to continue working with actual film. It's a nuanced discussion, just like the merits of a particular filmmaker and his/her work.


    The digital camera technology was given a shot in the arm when Lucas decided to shoot AotC using the format, but it would be inaccurate to assume that the technology wouldn't have arrived without it.

    I mean, are you really making the claim that Lucas is a respected filmmaker because he made a good movie in American Graffiti and his movies demanded technological innovations?
     
  15. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 31, 2013
    I'm not sure I called you an "idiot". As always, you miss the point by a country mile. I'm not the one trying to argue that Star Trek 09 or Godzilla or even The Phantom Menace are great films. Of course I have my own criteria for what I judge good, bad or indifferent... but if you want to go down the 'all art is equal', 'all expression is art' route, then I'll go with that too. I'm quite accommodating... and I'll debate it from whatever angle you want to, but you should be consistent.
     
    Red_Leader_313 likes this.
  16. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    SW is exactly the same in regards to the Hidden Fortress. Do you really think if JJ was just 'mimicking' he would get so many amazing reviews? You're overstating this dramatically.

    What? They have valid criticisms. Doesn't mean I agree with them.

    I didn't say that. That's like saying you don't respect Thomas Jefferson, because someone would have filled his placed. You do realise the extreme impact George's innovations had?

    Yes. the advancements he fostered personally are stupendous.

    All I'm saying is that I think his films are great. The only objective standard we have agrees with me, for what its worth. I am being consistent.

    You essentially did call me an idiot, or at least belittled my point.
     
  17. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 31, 2013
    It's completely fine with me if you think his films are 'great' (or anyone else's for that matter)... all power to you for having that appreciation for it. I think it only becomes problematic when you try to claim them as being demonstrably 'great', or try to assert that they have received the same amount of critical acclaim (or are viewed in the same regard), as the other films we've mentioned, but without making a case for it (I'm certainly open to being persuaded). You are just as entitled to think Star Trek 09 is great as I am to think A Matter of Life and Death is... or ANH (which I do think is a truly great film)... that's personal opinion for you.

    What's the "objective standard" by the way?

    On the other point. No - I don't think you are an idiot. If I thought that I'd say it... I do however believe that your claim was a silly one i.e. that Star Trek 09 is as highly acclaimed/regarded as some of the most important films of the last 50 years.
     
  18. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    I don't believe I've ever done this. I've frequently mentioned the subjectivity of it.

    Rotten Tomatoes and iMDB. Not completely objective, but the best we've had.
     
  19. Red_Leader_313

    Red_Leader_313 Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Firstly, it's inaccurate to say his reviews are "amazing." Audiences and critics have enjoyed his films - a point which no one will deny - but the degree to which they are admired is something that you are projecting. It's as if you think that all positive reviews are created equal, or that two films with an 80% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes must be of the same caliber.

    It is not exactly the same in regards to Hidden Fortress. Lucas dropped a few Kurosawa references into his movie, but he did so crafting a film that was unlike anything that came before it.

    Again, you're falling into this binary way of thinking. No one is arguing that making references or homages is a bad thing. In fact, when done right, allusions to other films can be satisfying and fun. But when the entire tone/style of Super 8 is designed to feel like the work of someone else, the qualities of the individual filmmaker are buried beneath the style of another.

    This brings me back to the whole thing about Abrams. He is a talented, capable, insightful filmmaker, but he has yet to craft a film with a unique voice or notable, personal style. Some hoped for a more distinct filmmaker to take the reigns of TFA, others believe that Abrams' ability to tap into the style of the movies he loves is an asset.

    They do not have valid criticisms if they are motivated by social pressures instead of the merits of the films they are criticizing.

    You said he "innovated," which I understood to mean that he was somehow responsible for the development and popularization of digital cameras. If that is not what you meant then I'm left wondering what exactly you meant by "innovate." Or maybe you're just using it as a buzz word and really don't know what particular things filmmakers do when they "innovate," but it sounds important so you think it'll further your argument by dropping it once and a while.


    The Thomas Jefferson comparison doesn't make sense to me.


    So you're admitting that those are the only reasons he is respected?
     
    Darth PJ likes this.
  20. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    I can argue you are detracting from the reviews he has received.

    A 'few' Kurosawa reference is a bit laughable. It was so similar they almost had to buy the rights. This isn't a bad thing - just a fact of the matter.

    I don't disagree.

    Who said they were kneeing to social pressure?

    Firstly we weren't just talking about digital cameras - rather digital technology. His companies have innovated in all these areas - digital projection, sound design, digital editing, digital cameras. All of this has moved the industry forward.

    Stop with the condescension by the way - it's incredibly patronising.

    They are a primary reason.
     
  21. Heero_Yuy

    Heero_Yuy Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Coming from someone who claims the PT was good without a shred of irony, I find your attitude quite hilarious. Especially since both of JJ's worst film is better than anything Lucas directed after 1977. Heck, before 1977 for that matter.

    Seriously, quit now before you humiliate yourself further.
     
  22. Red_Leader_313

    Red_Leader_313 Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 30, 2014


    Sure, you can argue that I am detracting from his reviews, but I think the basic point is that throughout the conversation you have been conflating positive reviews with excellent ones, as if a resume of well-received films puts him on the same level as Paul Thomas Anderson. But this is indicative of your general style of debate in the first place, where you force things into categories for the sake of making false connections and equivalencies. For someone calling themselves a philosopher, I wonder whether you've even passed a basic logic course.

    Yes, a "few" Kurosawa references. The Droids serving as our ushers into the primary narrative is a device inspired by Hidden Fortress, but your assertion that they almost had to buy the rights demonstrates a general misunderstanding of copyright law. Lucas also references Yojimbo in the cantina scene, and there are a some cinematic devices that he borrows. So, "a few."

    I said they were kneeling to social pressure when I invented the example a few posts ago.

    Again, all of these technological devices that contribute to the spectacle of cinema are things that your snobby film types would more readily dismiss than praise. There are many reasons that Lucas is respected in multiple facets of the film community, and your insistence to assert that critics, filmmakers, and audiences are so narrow minded as to only give these people credit in one or two areas is beyond me.

    No one really cares about the Wachowskis anymore, and the Matrix was just as innovative as TPM, and a much better movie. Why do you think that is?
     
    Darth PJ likes this.
  23. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    I never said that.

    Again the patronising condescension, not to mention the irony of suggesting I implied things when I didn't.

    He did almost buy the rights.

    Nice to know you skipped most of them.

    We are only talking about the 'snob community' - please don't suggest I was saying why the general public, critics, or filmmakers respect people. I know it would be convenient for your argument if I was saying that - but I'm not. And the 'snobs' do respect the innovations for various reasons. And they don't in general respect SW.

    It is the height of irony that you would accuse me of incorrectly asserting a certain group believes something, and then make an assertion yourself.
     
  24. Darth PJ

    Darth PJ Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 31, 2013
    But based on the same criteria, the PT was largely good (even if not great), achieved largely positive reviews (certainly AOTC and ROTS) and made vast amounts of money (TPM being one of the biggest earners of all time)... not to mention the technological innovation it championed. So I think your argument falls down on several fronts. Can I suggest engaging your brain a little more if you want to engage with me further?
     
  25. Red_Leader_313

    Red_Leader_313 Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 30, 2014

    I'm sure the snob community is happy to have you around, telling them what they like and what they don't. Tell me, do they have an administrator who monitors their opinions to make sure none of them are secretly respecting Star Wars on the DL?

    But he didn't buy the rights because someone who knows more about copyright law than he does said, "come on, George, why would we go and do an unnecessary thing like that!!??!!"

    I don't have to make any claims as to your behavior because it's clear and on display for all to see.

    Of course you didn't say that, but the way you're suggesting a generous number of good reviews exalts Abrams to a status of filmmaker he hasn't achieved, it is as if you are.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.