Lay Off Lucas & Co. Already!

It's late and I'm bored, so I'll take a crack at this.

If anything, he might have just improved.

For one, he has absolute control over the product from beginning to end. His company is sucessful enough so he can get the best people available to work for him. He's learned from the mistakes he made in his career. He had 15 years to reflect on the story. He has the technology to match his vision of the GFFA. He seems completely at peace with what he's doing and his purpose in the world. His priorities are all ironed out.

 

of course the quality somebody produces differs. I know that I have days when Im perform better at work than on other days. On some days I achieve more than on others. Andre Agassi might win the US Open one day and on the next day he loses in the first round of a tournament. Maurice Green might run 9.80 seconds over 100 metres today and 10.50 tomorrow. Coppola might make Godfather today and Jack tomorrow
I personally see Lucas as ultimately responsible for script and direction of ESB and ROTJ. Nothing in those films could have happened without his strict approval. David Lynch confirmed this. As you know he was offered to direct ROTJ and went through a lot of planning and pre-production with Lucas and he later pulled out with the explanation that "it would have been George's film, not mine. Had I been the director of ROTJ the film would have looked EXACTLY like the film made by Marquand since the director was merely to call the shots Lucas envisioned" (paraphrased from a recent Lynch interview with Empire magazine).
The way ANH was made was totally different to the way AOTC was made. During ANH Lucas had no budget, lots of studio pressure and very limited effects and sets. The consequence was that a lot of imagination and improvisation was necessary to make the film, something that in my eyes helped the film. Today Lucas has full control and can do whatever he likes. He could theoretically make a film of himself picking his nose for two hours and Fox would release it without questions asked.
So it's not so much that the abilities of Lucas have changed but the circumstances of filmmaking have radically changed. And that makes for a totally different end product

 

Very much agreed, Tufako.

 

So it's not so much that the abilities of Lucas have changed but the circumstances of filmmaking have radically changed. And that makes for a totally different end product.

And in many ways, a better one.

 

In your opinion.

 

So in order for a movie to be good, there must be limits put on the creative force behind the movie? ?

 

It's not an absolute, but it's not an unrealistic hypothesis.

If you've done any serious reading in your psychology book, and have knowledge of successful movie-making teams (such as Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer), you'll have read that opposites can reinforce and support each other. The "creative" part can come up with many ideas, whereas the "grounded" part chooses among the best of them, and fills in the details (which can be further added to by the "creative" part.)

It's a kind of symbiosis. Lucas is certainly an idea man, but someone's got to take his ideas and put them onto paper, into molds, and on the screen. This was the primary reason why he created his own effects store, ILM. No one else was capable of making his wild ideas look realistic.

Having outside limitations: time, money, bosses, etc., makes one focus on what is absolutely necessary, rather than waste time dilly-dallying on "what may be" in AGFFA. The fact that Lucas had always wanted to go back and redo key scenes in the OT speaks volumes about this theory. He never felt that he was truly able to do exactly what he wanted to do.

Then again, you may not have gotten to that chapter in your book yet.

Either way, one book I highly recommend you buy is Please Understand Me. Fascinating stuff, and it really delves into the effective pairing of different types of personalities.

 

Gee, I really hate to break this to you, but I got my psychology book from my college bookstore. Standard issue for a required General Studies psychology class.

 

An example of how limitations can spark the imagination and creativity is The Matrix. It wasn't a low-budget film of course but nevertheless had its limits. The original script called for the Oracle to live in a luxurious temple in Zion, a sequence that the Wachowskis couldn't film since they ran out of money. So the scene was re-written as the low-budget kitchen-in-the-apartment scene which is one of the most memorable sequences of the film in many people's eyes.
Another reason pressure often makes for better products is that one guy's vision can be clouded. George really, seriously thought that JarJar was a good idea, a laugh riot, a worldwide smash hit that would turn into the most popular movie character in the world. If there had been more creative heads behind the film with power than possibly somebody might have told him that maybe, possibly, JarJar wasn't such a good idea after all.

 

On the other hand, Jar Jar has been a huge smash-hit with the target audience

 

"So it's not so much that the abilities of Lucas have changed but the circumstances of filmmaking have radically changed. And that makes for a totally different end product.

And in many ways, a better one"



I totaly disargee Durwood especially If your style changes for the worst!

 

what target audience? If you talk about the Teletubbies age group than that's possible but do you really think TPM was specifically made for 2-year-olds?
JarJar Binks was easily the most hated movie character of recent years. You cannot seriously claim the opposite. What In find so bizarre is that apparently nobody on the production had the guts to tell Lucas that he was completely out of line with that big-lipped frog shouting "Messa JarJar, Messa you' 'umble se'vant!"

 

The only place I really ever see hate places for Jar Jar is on the net. And the net world is a small part of the Star Wars fan base.

 

do you really think TPM was specifically made for 2-year-olds?

Obviously not, since you and all of your friends spend so much time talking about it

 

"An example of how limitations can spark the imagination and creativity is The Matrix. It wasn't a low-budget film of course but nevertheless had its limits. The original script called for the Oracle to live in a luxurious temple in Zion, a sequence that the Wachowskis couldn't film since they ran out of money. So the scene was re-written as the low-budget kitchen-in-the-apartment scene which is one of the most memorable sequences of the film in many people's eyes."

I didn't know that. I loved that scene.

"I totaly disargee Durwood especially If your style changes for the worst!"

Like the SE's. Yuck!

"The only place I really ever see hate places for Jar Jar is on the net. And the net world is a small part of the Star Wars fan base."

I completely disagree with you there.

"since you and all of your friends spend so much time talking about it"

Don't you mean "we all"?

 

And the net world is a small part of the Star Wars fan base."

I completely disagree with you there.

Oh but this is a very small part of the fan base. What you think ever last SW fan comes to a message board.


Know fan clubs that a different story

 

I totaly disargee Durwood especially If your style changes for the worst!

I agree, but in Lucas' case, the change was clearly for the better.

 

Yeah, maybe when he's playing with his toys and special effect absolutely.He is a great visual effects person but a horrible director with bad scriptwriting ability.

Lucas is the master of special effects and playsets but James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Steven Spielburg and Ang Lee would run circles around Lucas rusty directing ability.

 

It depends on what you value as the qualities of a good director. I prefer Lucas' style because he is what is known as an invisible director meaning that his style and technique don't call attention to themselves. He records the action from simple and traditional camera angles, much in keeping with his documentary roots. Spielberg, Ang Lee, and Cameron, on the other hand, are visible directors, and while they make exciting looking films, I often find their noticable style can pull me out of the film through certain (and debatably unecessary) shots and techniques (such as the scene in Minority Report when the spiders are looking for Cruise's character. While the overhead shot moving throughout the apartement complex was very cool, it really took me out of the movie because of its inherently unnatural quality.)

Lucas' style may not be flashy, but he composes each and every frame with a care and attention to detail that is virtually unmatched in the world of cinema today.

 

After "The Hulk" I would cross Ang Lee off that list.

And Peter Jackson... have you SEEN his non-LOTR movies? He's done well with LOTR but I don't think he's right for SW, and I find it difficult to watch "Meet the Feebles" and think "this guy should do Star Wars".

Cameron and Spielberg, sure. I always thought Spielberg should have directed TPM.


Rick McCallum loves you!

 

My primary criticism concerning Jackson's directing of Rings is that he's shooting it like a TV movie. For a story as epic as Tolkien's The Lord Of The Rings I would have prefered a more epic look. It was interesting to watch the behind the scenes stuff where the set designers talked about how much care and detail they put into each and every set only to have 95% of it cropped out through close-ups. And don't even get me started on Jackson's action cinematography.

Overall Jackson has done a decent job, but there are some key points that I wish he had taken a different direction. Still, I look forward to Return Of The King and completing my The Lord Of The Rings DVD collection.

 

"Lucas' style may not be flashy, but he composes each and every frame with a care and attention to detail that is virtually unmatched in the world of cinema today"


No he doesn't.Are you talking about good camera angles or a director who can squeeze life out of even the worst actor or who can make you not only like but understand a complex scene.I'm talking about director who spend more time on the living than pixel and thingamabobers because in the end it's the actor who sells the movie.

If your talking about camera angles than Lucas has no equal in cinema but what does all that mean if you don't fell the actors or understand the story.

Lee, Cameron, Jackson, Spielburg may never touch Lucas in their lifetime when it cames to using special camera and toys but they would run circle around him directing.

 

Are you talking about good camera angles or a director

Um... part of a director's job is to use the camera to the film's advantage.

Film is a visual medium.

That's why great Shakespeare plays sometimes fail on film. It's not the fault of the story or the script or the actor... it's the fault of a director who doesn't understand how to tell the story on film rather than on a stage.

The camera isn't just the thing that shoots the actors. It's part of the story itself.

Read the opening of the camera chapter in Sidney Lumet's book "Making Movies" for a better explanation than I can give.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

DamonD: On the other hand, Jar Jar has been a huge smash-hit with the target audience

Bad news for that target audience then. It's been confirmed (by Rick McCallum) that Jar Jar will have less screen time in Episode 3 than in AOTC. That makes it, what, 4 seconds tops of screentime?

So much for that popular character.

 

If your talking about camera angles than Lucas has no equal in cinema

Exactly.

but what does all that mean if you don't fell the actors or understand the story.

You didn't understand the story? Or are you saying that Lucas inexplicably failed to understand his own story?

As for not feeling the actors (not sure what you mean by that), I felt as invested in their characters as any other movie I've seen lately.

It all comes down to personal opinion in the end.