Is Lucas a better/worse DIRECTOR today than when he made ANH?

That only proves some people fall asleep easily.

As for him boring you to death, you don't -have- to watch it if you know you won't appreciate it.

 

People falling asleep in an "action" film does not support the notion Lucas is on track with his direction.

 

WSBorroughs,

If I may, I'd like to suggest not going down this road with Go-Mer-Tonic. It will get you nowhere. When he starts making comments that include the words "you don't know how to...", the discussion declines into another basher / gusher flame fest.

Go-Mer,

Please stop. The moment you make comments like those in your lasts few posts everyone's dander gets up. You're very good at manipulating things to turn them sour, and it's denigrated many a discussion. So, again please, refrain from the personal atacks, even if they're by suggestion.

 

Regarding Lucas's directing; the end result on the screen is proof enough.

Yes the proof is that he made two great PT movies!

 

It is not a personal attack to say that people falling asleep during a movie could be due to sleepy people, and may have nothing to do with how well Lucas renders the action.

It would seem more likely to me because I didn't notice anything lackluster about the action myself. It is certainly not any kind of personal attack, and I grow weary of that accusation being thrown at me all the time without cause.

You guys saying that people are falling asleep because Lucas has somehow failed bothers me, but does anyone worry about how I would take that?

To me, the negativists that make it their business to hang out in a fan forum for a film they hate are equally at fault for riling things up in here. But as long as it doesn't deterioratie into personal attacks, I am fine with it.

 

As for him boring you to death, you don't -have- to watch it if you know you won't appreciate it.

This statement has a degree of effrontery and assumption that can easily be misconstrued as a personal attack.

You guys saying that people are falling asleep because Lucas has somehow failed bothers me, but does anyone worry about how I would take that?

Comments directed at Lucas are not meant to have any emotional resonance for you Go-Mer. It's not about you at all. Why internalize it? You're not Lucas, are you?

Every time something like this comes up, you immediately go on the defensive (on Lucas' behalf). Why? All you have to do in your arguments is communicate why YOU like what Lucas does. Lucas doesn't need you to save him on these boards.

To me, the negativists that make it their business to hang out in a fan forum for a film they hate are equally at fault for riling things up in here. But as long as it doesn't deterioratie into personal attacks, I am fine with it.

Fair enough. But, in times past, you've always gone on the defensive and made generalizations about the people that you're debating with, not the opinions themselves.

This board was put together to discuss the merits of Lucas' directing abilities, and to get a general feel from the particpants if they think he's changed over the years. In my personal posts, I try to discuss why I think he's changed. When you post, you give no reasons for why you like EVERYTHING he does. In your mind, because the PT films have been awesome to you, then you're right and everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong, or doesn't "get it" (an argument you've dredged up time and again.) My last request of you was simply a recognition of the start of a long established pattern of posts that you have, and I asked you not to go there. This can be a fun forum without the same flames being thrown around again.

Now, I gladly step off my soapbox.

 

It isn't a personal attack to suggest someone could avoid being bored by one of Lucas' pruductions by simply not watching it. It is a logical peice of advice, not a personal attack.

I am sorry if you don't understand why people cutting down a series of films I love in the very forums set aside for it's fans gets to me, but it does. Wether you mean it to or not. Since Lucas is not here to defend himself, I do it for him. It's the least I can do after everything he has done for us.

If you want to dwell on things I have said in the past, there is nothing I can do about that now. I admit that when I have gotten personal about it, there was no need for that. When I almost got banned for this sort of thing, I took a volentary leave of these boards so I could return with a more even keeled approach to my comments, which I thought I was doing a decent enough job so far.

I appreciate you not wanting me to return to the personal attacks I have used in the past, but I have not yet done that.

Someone is telling me that people falling asleep during TPM is a sign that it was written badly, or that it's action was not "substantial". It isn't a personal attack to point out that people fall asleep all the time when they are tired, wether or not a particular film they are watching is "great" or not.

 

Go-Mer,

LEAVE. LEAVE this thread now before you get it locked. You are such a broken record. Nobody cares that you take critisms of Lucas personally. HE doesn't even know or care. Debates require some negativity and this means people are going to have a go at Lucas and his abilities. Since HE IS NOT A MEMBER HERE, WE ARE ALLOWED TO CRITISISE HIM. Stop personally attacking other members by implying there is something wrong with them for not liking what you like.

YOU have been down this road a million times before. Nothing changes. You don't change. The mods crack down on you. You whinge about not being able to be nasty to your fellow fans. You leave for two weeks or so. You return and start the same nonsense about a week or two later. Stop repeating this and just LEAVE. The discussion was going along fine without you. We don't want you here.

 

hawk,

LEAVE. LEAVE this thread now before you get it locked. You are such a broken record. Nobody cares that you have no respect for Lucas. HE doesn't even know or care. Debates require some balance and this means people are going to defend Lucas and his abilities. Since HE IS NOT A MEMBER HERE, WE ARE ALLOWED TO DEFEND HIM. Stop personally attacking other members by implying there is something wrong with them for not disliking what you dislike.

YOU have been down this road a million times before. Nothing changes. You don't change. The mods crack down on you. (Or not.) You whinge about not being able to be nasty to your fellow fans. You leave for two weeks or so. You return and start the same nonsense about a week or two later. Stop repeating this and just LEAVE. The discussion was going along fine without you. We don't want you here.

 

Shelley, Gomer: you just dont get it. attacks on Lucas, his directing ability, his writing ability etc. are all fair game. i have no idea why you need to take it personally when people make comments about a PUBLIC FIGURE. people can bash him til the cows come home but that does not give ANYONE the right to personally attack other users on this board in his defense.

read the TOS, its all clear as crystal.

 

Seems to me like hawk is who needs to read the TOS again. He's the one making personal attacks on Go-Mer.

No one said you don't have the right to criticize Lucas. But other people have just as much of a right to defend him.

 

yes you have every right to defend him. unfortunatley some posters have the need to attack other posters for attacking Lucas. thats when things go kerblooey.

 

Yes, and as Go-Mer admitted, he did do that in the past and was duly warned for it.

Simply disagreeing with someone and defending Lucas is not tantamount to a "personal attack."

A "personal attack" is what hawk made on Go-Mer in his post above.

 

Tadji- thank you for being reasonable throughout.

hawk- that last comment towards Go-Mer was flame-baiting. Watch it.

Shelley, Go-Mer, your most recent "contributions" to this thread disappoint me. Knock it off or you get vacations.

I'm locking this thread for 24 hours so everyone can simmer down, then I will unlock it and discussion can resume when folks are more civil.

 

Now, let's try this again. Play nice, folks.

 

Lucas is a "different" director today than he was back in the day. He's older, more experienced and is using the medium in a different way. To say he's comparable to the director he was before is to compare whether a 1978 Chevy car is better or worse than a 2003 Chevy car. They are too different from one another, operating in a much different world, to be compared apples-to-apples.

 

I wanted to discuss the specifics of how he may have changed. Would anyone care to respond to the scene comparison I made on page two? What causes such a different response in emotion from the actors between films?

 

I'd say Lucas is a worse director than before.

(No offence to anyone else).

With ANH he had a great story to tell and he told it competently.

He was also hungry at the time.

But he never was a great director.

Years of not practicing his craft has made him even more rusty.

It's good though that he finally has returned to the Director's chair, so people can compare him to other contemporary directors and his peers.

But compared to most of them he is not a good director.

His main strength has always been collaboration,

but now that has been reduced to just help from his special effects technicians.

 

I think he's as good a director now as he was back then.

I don't think that many of the comments made in this thread are very fair to him.

 

Here's what hawk had posted:

Compare the scene on the DS in ANH, with the Imperials discussing the rebels and the battle station, with a similar scene on Naboo where the Queen is discussing an invasion. I mention these scenes bc they both have people sitting around talking about events.

The scene in ANH shows the Imperials getting all worked up and one becomes quite smug. It opens with Tarkin charging into the room with that classic, bitter look on his face. I don't know if it the actors making the most of their roles or Lucas' direction but they look deeply involved in the events of the movie.

Then look at the scene in TPM. One character says it must be an invasion. He says it sitting totally still with virtually no expression. The Queen sits there and says she will not go to war barely fluttering an eyelid. I don't care if this is supposed to be regal. If your planet was about to be invaded, you would CARE and would show it. The actors here are just delivering their lines and, unlike the actors in ANH, do not look involved in the events of the film. Really bored if you ask me. What I don't get is that there are no big CGI effects in that scene, so it can't be that Lucas was distracted by this. What has caused the performances in the PT to be so flat and this one in particular?

Binary Sunset's reply: I blame Lucas for the performance of the actors in that scene in TPM. Any director paying attention would have yelled, "OK, cut!" Then he would have had a talk with the actors and re-shot the scene.

The fact that he didn't says to me that getting gripping performances out of his actors isn't high on his priority list. Perhaps his mind was wandering on how precisely they were going to do Jar Jar in a certain scene, so he just said, "Cut! That's great." [Aside to McCallum]: "I gotta get down to the computer lab. You handle this crowd."

 

While I may disagree with hawk on his views of the PT, he makes some good observations here.

However, allow me to present a different point of view. Amidala establishes herself quickly as a pacifist Queen who does not seek violent conflict to resolve disputes. "We must continue to rely on negotiations," is a line that is one example of this.

However, Tarkin is a power-hungry Imperial warlord. The exact opposite of Amidala's character. "Fear will keep the local systems in line," is an example of Tarkin's, and the Empire's mentality, again the opposite of Amidala's and Naboo's. Would it make sense for these two characters to behave in the exact same manner in a similarly structred scene?

I believe Amidala DOES care about what is happening to her people. It's what prompts all of her actions in the film. Her care for others above herself is also shown in different ways in AOTC. It's the nature of her character.

I'll give hawk and other BS members this: TPM had the weakest acting by secondary characters of any film in the saga. Panaka and Ric Olie make me wince, and Sio Bibble isn't much better, except when he delivers presents Christmas morning

 

I thought ANH was wonderfully directed but ANH and TPM weren't bad either.

 

I'll give hawk and other BS members this: TPM had the weakest acting by secondary characters of any film in the saga. Panaka and Ric Olie make me wince, and Sio Bibble isn't much better, except when he delivers presents Christmas morning

Thanks .

 

However, Tarkin is a power-hungry Imperial warlord. The exact opposite of Amidala's character. "Fear will keep the local systems in line," is an example of Tarkin's, and the Empire's mentality, again the opposite of Amidala's and Naboo's. Would it make sense for these two characters to behave in the exact same manner in a similarly structred scene?

Yes, I agree but I don't mean the characters. I mean the actors. The actors in this particular scene in ANH seem to be diving head first into their roles as Imperials. Their performances are never questioned. In TPM, the performances of Portman in the invasion discussion scene is especially weak. "Hey, my planet's about to be invaded but I will sit here quietly and recite my lines". I just don't buy that thse people are concerned about the invasion. They just look like actors reading lines. This is NOT the case with the actors in ANH.

I am talking about these specific scenes. There are moments in TPM when the actors portray their characters well. Ian McDiarmond is especially good and raises the film a few notches whenever he performs. Bravo!

 

Panaka and Ric Olie make me wince, and Sio Bibble isn't much better, except when he delivers presents Christmas morning

Ah, so I have a Bibble icon!