If you got a job (on TPM) working with the creator of Star Wars would you speak up?

Discussion in 'The Phantom Menace' started by hawk, Nov 3, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RogueSith Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 3
    [face_shocked]


    Shelley was just...*gasp* polite to me!






    *backs away slowly*


    ;)
  2. hawk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 3, 2000
    star 5
    RogueSith,

    Have you seen that episode of the Simpsons where Homer backs away slowly from the QuickieMart all the way into his bed? I can just imagine you doing that now! he he :D
  3. hawk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 3, 2000
    star 5
    cbjedi,

    I'll concede that you're making alot of sense. I'll agree that Lucas's current staff is much less likely to not give him troubles. But is that such a bad thing?

    I think we may be making progress. First we all have to decide this: does Lucas have MORE control over the Prequels than the Original Trilogy? Perhaps this is because he has surrounded himself with people who want to fullfill his wishes (I will stop calling them "yes men"). I think it is logical to think this way. Who wouldn't want to have complete control over their art? Why keep Kurtz around if he fights him all the way?


    At the very least we all agree Lucas has MORE control. Considering that the PT is no loved by many who like the OT, couldn't this "I can do anything that pops into my head" be a problem. Can't limitations sometimes be "good" for things? Can pulling back the reigns (choosing or forced to) actually aid a film? I think that if Lucas had more limitations or chose to pull those reigns, we wouldn't have a PT that is overkill. That's all for now but I will write more tommorow or the next day.
  4. SomeRandomNerd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 20, 1999
    star 4
    I think Lucas has more control, but not because of the people he works with- from day one of Star Wars he's held the reins, and has been able to choose his team as he pleased.

    The difference is that, mainly thanks to ILM (which, as we no doubt all know, only exists because of Star Wars) there is more that can be done now then back then. (Spaceships can do more than fly in straight lines, for starters!)
  5. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    We've been deprived of a LOTR movie series.

    Didn't they have LOTR as a cartoon moive? I think remember hearing about one. I also heard it was not very good.
  6. RogueSith Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 3
    Not very good? What about "Where there's a whip, there's a way"? What a great song!

    ;)
  7. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    "Where there's a whip, there's a way"? This was a song. Get out town. Odd name for a song. But here what I would really like to do. Be co-creator with GL on TPM.
  8. RogueSith Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 3
    It was the goblins(or Orcs, who can tell them apart?) answer to "Whistle why you work". The basic idea was any job can get done if the foreman is caring a whip. A real feel good tune.

    Golem was another cool thing in the cartoon. And he's the only reason I'm excited to see TTT. IMO, there just aren't enough truly insane characters out there. :D
  9. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    Yes I also want to see TTT. But I want the AOTC DVD right know. But I'm not the biggetd fan of LOTR. I like the moives but I just never got in to the books.
  10. TadjiStation Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2001
    star 4
    I do not think that limitations in film is a good thing. Nowadays if you can imagine it, you can put it on the screen.

    If I may respond to this one. I believe that limitations can be of tremendous importance in any artistic creation - whether they be film, music, painting, etc. Limitations, whatever they may be, tend to force the artist to think on his or her feet. To search for alternative methods to get the same point across. Specific to film, these limitations can be time and technology mainly. With a person like Lucas, he's limited only by his own imagination. To me, that's his problem.

    His imagination is great, that much we've seen. However, I tend to think that he's so immersed in bringing his ideas VISUALLY across that he forgets about other very important aspects of the medium he's working in. Narrative film is not JUST a visual array of pictures. When you have people in your film, they tend to be used to propel the story along. In order to do that successfully, the film must connect with the audience who sees it. Characters who are well drawn AND performed tend to do that.

    If the quotes about Lucas mentioned earlier in this thread are correct, then it would seem that Lucas doesn't find actors as important as the visual elements in his films. He himself is quoted as saying special effects without story are boring. However, I don't think he realises just how important the actors are in conveying that story. It's possible that at one time, he did, and maybe this is why the OT works so much better (IMHO) than the PT: the limitation of the technology forced him to concentrate just a bit more on the performances and actors on hand.

    We've been deprived of a LOTR movie series for many, many years now simply because until now they've lacked the technology to bring it to the screen. I read that back in the late 60's there was talk of both David Lean and Stanley Kubrick being mildly interested in filming a LOTR trilogy, but they both eventualy passed on it because there would have been no way they could have done it justice because they lacked the technology. Imagine that! I mean Jackson isn't a bad film-maker, but let's face it he's not fit to even bring Kubrick or Lean their coffee in the morning. Especially someone like Lean, who excelled in bringing amazing visual epics to the screen.

    Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Ever see the original "Ben Hur" or "Birth of a Nation" or "Intolerance"? These films have EPIC written all over them, and still have no comparison in today's filmmaking. Kubrick and Lean would have been fantastic choices to bring the LOTR story to life, but you mention they had only a passing interest. I would think that if they had real passion for the story, they would have found ways to make something pretty happening.

    As to Peter Jackson's comparistive directing abilities, I'd say your comment is a bit unfair. After all, we are talking about a director whose been working for about 15 years as opposed to directors who have become the stuff of movie legend. I think PJ will go down in history with great respect for his treatment of the LOTR trilogy, so long as TTT and ROTK are as good if not better than FOTR. Further, Jackson has displayed quite a good command of the medium from a variety of viewpoints (particularly acting and pacing), which unfortunately, our hero Lucas hasn't showed strong legs in.

    Imagine all the projects that could have been made by visionary film-makers who just couldn't film them only because the scope was just too big.

    I think we'd have seen some pretty sick films! :)

    Now nothing's too big with the technology we have today.

    The technology isn't what makes movies great. It's how it's used. IMHO, TPM and AOTC are almost over-reliant on the technology, at the sacrifice of performance and script.

    None of this changes the fact that if I were a lowly sound editor on ANY SW film, I'd be happy as a clam, and would want to keep my job for as long as possible! :D
  11. anidanami124 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 24, 2002
    star 6
    The technology isn't what makes movies great. It's how it's used. IMHO, TPM and AOTC are almost over-reliant on the technology, at the sacrifice of performance and script.


    So really this just come down to what one likes about the moive. Kind of like art.

    I'm I right on this?
  12. TadjiStation Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2001
    star 4
    So really this just come down to what one likes about the moive. Kind of like art.

    In essence, yes.

    I'm I right on this?

    There's no right or wrong here - only a very strong willed group of people shouting from the rooftops - opinions.

    :)

  13. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    George is very flexible; he knows what he wants, but he is flexible, and that's why I like him so much.
    -Irvin Kershner

    And with that, this tired debate is over.
  14. RogueSith Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 3
    Ok, people, that's it, let's clear out. It's over, the all mighty Durwood has spoken.
  15. TadjiStation Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2001
    star 4
    RogueSith,

    What are you referring to?

    :)
  16. stone_jedi Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 17, 2001
    star 4
    The last post on the previous page, where Durwood declared the debate to be over.
  17. RogueSith Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 3
    What's this? People still posting? It's over, didn't you hear?
  18. TadjiStation Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2001
    star 4
    Oh. I guess I better go then...

    :(
  19. hawk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 3, 2000
    star 5
    Tadji,

    Good post.

    Let me point out what I mean by limitations. If Lucas was limited to Yoda as a puppet, we would never have seen him in such a ridiculous action scene like in AOTC. I personally think that without outside limitations, Lucas will not bother to enforce the limitations in his head. Now if he comes up with a two-headed race announcer, all that needs to be done is "CGI IT!". Back in the 70s and 80s, the two-head would have looked too fake and the limitations would have fored him to come up with something else.

    I think the idea is that Lucas' imagination is almost too excessive and without limitations, we get ideas that should not have been.

    But it always comes down to what people like. If you love the two-head, Binks and all the other colourful critters, then I guess limitations don't mean much to you. So I suppose, for me and many others, if Lucas had more limitations, I would be enjoying the saga better.
  20. TadjiStation Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2001
    star 4
    hawk,

    I think we're on the same page here. While we may disagree on some of what Lucas has done (I liked the Yoda fight at the end of AOTC, for example), I think it's fairly easy to see that if Lucas has too many toys, he gets lost in the muck of it all.

    Oh well, I'd still like a paycheck from him!

    :)
  21. hawk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 3, 2000
    star 5
    I didn't really hate the Yoda scene that much. I thought it was just too amusing to be taken seriously. It played like a parody. Having no limitations reminds me of a kid given all the colours to draw with. They go crazy with them! It's fun and expressive but ends up being messy. Or it could be like when a kid mixes all the coloured paint hoping for a really facinating colour. Instead he ends up with a brown blob. Limitations are great.

    I love not having everything I dream of. If I did then I wouldn't appreciate the smaller things I have. Lucas doesn't seem to appreciate those simple scenes like Ben and Luke's discussion in ANH or the Imperial's meeting. Today, even the most serious of scenes have CGI critters and backdrops bursting in the background.
  22. Ree Yees Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 6, 2000
    star 5
    I think the idea is that Lucas' imagination is almost too excessive and without limitations, we get ideas that should not have been.

    I disagree. Through the two prequel movies, Lucas has shown that his imagination is far more limited than the classic trilogy would have us believe.
    I don't think it's imaginative to have Yoda fight with a lightsaber, it's rather the other way around: it's a boring solution which anyone could have thought of, but which many of us would have rejected in the pursuit of more fruitful characterization.

    Really, there are few things that are strikingly imaginative/visually appealling in the prequels, and I blame Doug Chiang for this too.

  23. hawk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 3, 2000
    star 5
    Good point actually Ree Yees. I will have to have a think. Is possible that a person can show their limitations with the aid of limitless power? Ah?
  24. Punisher Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 20, 1998
    star 4
    I would have loved to worked on a SW just to witness the &#^%$ing and complaining that would have occured once Emperor Lucas and Darth McCallum had left the room.
    I know that people won't talk in front of the superiors, but I'm sure lots of comments were made in private or amongst co-workers.

    Yeah, I realize that many of those people working for GL, LFL,ILM, THX, etc, aren't going to speak up or get into arguments with the boss, I'm sure they have nice paying jobs and don't want to get "blacklisted" or anything, besides, I'm sure it looks great to have any of the above initials on your resume. ;)

    I would have loved to have "gone off" on GL and RM, but I would shut up and I'd probably would use the old favorite "I was just following orders" to excuse myself from the PT.

    I think it would be best to work at ILM, you get to work on the films (obviously the "look" and the f/x are what the critics haven't trashed as harshly as the story and acting) and you can say "I did a cool shot, but I didn't write the freaking thing."
    You get to work on the films, but don't get to take any of the blame... unless you were a Jar Jar animator or composited the Anakin/Shaak scene. ;)
  25. SomeRandomNerd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 20, 1999
    star 4
    >>>Let me point out what I mean by limitations. If Lucas was limited to Yoda as a puppet, we would never have seen him in such a ridiculous action scene like in AOTC.

    What was ridiculous about it?

    Or is it just the idea of Yoda in an action scene that's ridiculous?

    >>>Now if he comes up with a two-headed race announcer, all that needs to be done is "CGI IT!". Back in the 70s and 80s, the two-head would have looked too fake and the limitations would have fored him to come up with something else.

    I don't understand. Why would it have looked any more fake or worse than a puppet of, let's say, a little green alien with big pointy ears? Or a giant space-slug? (Either one...)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.