Spielberg and AOTC

"Minority Report" is one of the most overrated movies in recent times. It's bland, predictable, flat, and unemotional. It amazed me to see several views of it as a "thinking" movie. Please. I figured the whole thing out a half an hour into it. It's Dick/Orwell LITE. The only character that seemed somewhat "human" was Audrey, the precog who is waaaay underdeveloped. I didn't care at all for Cruise's character and there was NO supporting cast.

It's easy to say "Speilberg has lost it", but I just think his last two project were bad choices for him. A.I. and Minority Report were much better suited for a director with a bleaker sci-fi view like Kubrick, Terry Gilliam, or even Alex Proyas. Speilberg is one of our great modern American directors; it is a pity to see him wasting his time with recycled throwaway stuff like "Minority Report".

 

I think the reason TPM and AOTC aren't as good as ANH is that ANH was brilliantly edited and was genuinely funny. Lucas' earlier films - ANH, AMERICAN GRAFFITTI, and THX 1138 all had the same crude camera work as TPM and AOTC, but had great editing and comedy (in ANH and AG). AOTC and TPM just don't. Lucas seems to have lost his once great editing skills as well as his witty sense of humor.

I think Spielberg is by far the better director. Camera angles and moves, and directing actors and everything. The one area where GL used to be better was his editing, but he has lost it. Having said that, I don't want to see Spielberg do ep3 because I don't think his style would quite fit with star wars.

Someone mentioned Zoetrope. How about Coppola for directing ep3? I think his operatic storytelling style would fit perfectly. The themes of loss and betrayal and tragedy Coppola handled so well in Godfather films will all be there in ep3. Coppola is great with actors. He and Lucas are good friends and worked together before.

I know Coppola has lost some of it as well, but even at half of what he once was he still better than GL. GL has totally lost it I'm afraid. His camera work and his writing and his direction of actors have always been subpar and the the two things that made his early films great - editing and humor - are gone.

 

Hated A.I., but I thought Minority Report was great, one of Steven's best. I would have liked to have seen him do Episode II with Frank Darabont writing it.

Lucas did not write Empire Strikes Back all by himself, nor did he direct it, and that turned out great. George does not need to be directing or writing the bulk of Star Wars, he's better when's he overseeing the general outline and scope of the story (ditto for Indiana Jones).

 

"Lucas seems to have lost his once great editing skills "

And who was the consistent editor on THX-113, GRAFFITI, and ANH? Marcia Lucas. I think Ben Burtt's a fine editor when it comes to action, but he's lacking when it comes to dialogue scenes. Too often, he (or Lucas, whoever's calling the shots) seem to cut to reaction shots too soon, or linger on ones that aren't interesting (perhaps it's the acting. It's hard to tell sometimes). Burtt's a brillant, brillant sound guy, but editing with respect to dialogue and overall story pacing, he's fairly mediocre.

"How about Coppola for directing ep3? "

Coppola's a legend based on his early work. But remember, the last time he directed a Lucas fantasy production, he gave us CAPTAIN EO. (althought, I admit, it's intriguing, because Coppola has such a grand, operatic vision, isn't afraid of the darkness, and has a long history working with young actors. He could do wonders w/ Hayden C. and Natalie P.)

Oh, and ferelwookie: If you're going to continue to bash MINORITY REPORT, at least get the character's names right. The precog's name is Agatha, not Audrey.

 

I think Spielberg is by far the better director. Camera angles and moves, and directing actors and everything.

In my opinion, Spielberg's biggest failing is that he's too flashy, at least for my taste. Spielberg is definitely what is known as a "visible director" in that many of his shots simply scream "LOOK AT ME! I'M A COOL SHOT!" I enjoy Spielberg's films, but I'm often pulled out of the moment because of this. I mean, sure, a swooping boom shot may look neat, but unmotivated camera movement can be distracting.

Lucas, on the other hand, directs more in the style I like and use (small television production). I prefer simple shots, letting the actors and environments sell the scene rather than trying to force the issue with some gaudy "cool shot" that is the Holy Grail of many amateurs. Lucas is an invisible director in that many of his shots are at eye-level with the actors, and his camera movement is almost always motivated by action in the scene. I think this gives his films terrific flow.

Honestly, I don't think Spielberg's flashy, dyed in the wool Hollywood style is appropriate for Star Wars.

 

Oh yes. I make it a habit of memorizing the character names in movies i didn't like! Was there another female precog in the movie who's name started with "A"? Maybe I should remember the name of the third guy to the right in "The Matrix" because I didn't like that movie either! Give me a break.

Speilberg along with Scorcese is one of the greatest American directors..."Minority Report" was a shameful waste of his time. There had to be at least 10 "cute" product placements. Does he really need this in his films at this point? And LUCAS is accused of having one dimesional characters?!

 

"I make it a habit of memorizing the character names in movies i didn't like! "

They only said her name a few dozen times.

As for the product placements, I heard that the companies paid $25 million to the budget for those placements. Depressing, yes, but a reality in today's economics. At least Spielberg tried to use them for satirical purposes, unlike SPIDER MAN, which just shoved them in your face. Although I did walk out of SPIDER with a hankering for Dr. Pepper and Cup o Noodles, so I guess it worked.

 

"I know Coppola has lost some of it as well, but even at half of what he once was he still better than GL. GL has totally lost it I'm afraid. His camera work and his writing and his direction of actors have always been subpar and the the two things that made his early films great - editing and humor - are gone."

Coppola was great in his prime, but I think he's lost it even more than Lucas. The last film of his I really enjoyed was Dracula, and even that was just as flawed as the prequels in terms of acting (can anyone tell me Keanu Reeves gave a better performance than Hayden Christenson?)
As for the editing and humour in AOTC being poor, I don't agree at all. Lucas may have gone a bit overboard with the cross-cutting in the middle section, but at least he kept the pace exciting throughout. I enoyed TPM, but there were quite a few scenes where it slowed to a crawl and became (dare I say it) slightly boring. The editing of the action scenes in AOTC is also much better, especially as we're allowed to watch them in a more linear format.
As for humour, I think this is the wittiest Star Wars film since Empire. Just because non-fans don't get some of the jokes, doesn't mean Lucas has lost his sense of humour. If you want an example of a film that takes itself too seriously, how about Fellowship of the Ring? Not knocking Peter Jackson's work - it was an awesome film for the most part. But I found some scenes, such as the Council of Elrond, way too pompous.

 

"And so endeth this topic . . ."

 

You should have said, "And that's the end of that chapter," and thrown your scarf over your shoulder, DarthHomer. That would have been so cool!

 

But that's just what you would have expected me to do!

 

What happened to you, DarthHomer? You used to be cool!

Anyhow, I'm glad we've got the George Lucas from the seventies back behind the camera again. He kicks bottom in a rather brilliant way .

 

Yes!Speilburg would have done a great job on AOTC!However,it would lose some of "the lucas style".Fast pace with less talking and more action!

 

"As for the product placements, I heard that the companies paid $25 million to the budget for those placements. Depressing, yes, but a reality in today's economics. At least Spielberg tried to use them for satirical purposes..."

A reality in today's economics, possibly... but I wonder what the reaction on these boards would be if GL put a few product placements in AOTC. There'd be 8 new threads per day ripping him a new one. And GL finances his own films, so if anyone could justify it, it would be him.

Anyway, I'm not surprised to see Minority Report slumping at the B.O., and I wonder why Spielberg is getting a free pass for two B.O. failures in a row.

 

Anyway, I'm not surprised to see Minority Report slumping at the B.O., and I wonder why Spielberg is getting a free pass for two B.O. failures in a row.

I wouldn't exactly say 73 mil in 2 weeks is slumping. It's not Lost World numbers, but still pretty damn good.

 

But thery're not Scooby Doo numbers, either.

 

George Lucas will never give up the director's chair for EP.III because of his ego. I think it burns him when people say ESB is the best SW movie of all time (maybe that's why there is no bio of Kersher at teh official site). Lucas is a great Producer of films and that's what he does best. He is not a great director and people should not compare him to Speilberg. If you look at the greats (David Lean, Coppola, and Speilberg) they have diverse range of films and subjects.
If we saw Lucas direct a movie out of his comfort zone of Star Wars, we will probably a director that has similar skills to a TV movie director.

 

"I wonder why Spielberg is getting a free pass for two B.O. failures in a row. "

Because MINORITY REPORT's not a box office failure? Because it will end up with $150 mil domestic. Because A.I. did 260 mil worldwide. Because even if you didn't like the movies, you had to admit they were interesting failures. Because Spielberg has over 25 years of producing and directing financially successful films. Explain what a "free pass" means.

"But thery're not Scooby Doo numbers, either. "

If Spielberg wanted only big numbers, he wouldn't have passed on HARRY POTTER. I don't hold SCOOBY DOO as anything for a filmmaker to aspire to. Spielberg wants to do things that interest him, whether they're successful or not. He could be cashing in on any number of big Hollywood productions, but if he chooses to go the road less travelled, then I'll follow and watch, with interest and respect.


BTW, Darth Fierce: Thanks for bringing new controversy to this thread. It was dying.

 

I ususally hat product placement in films, but for Minority Report, it didn't bother me. While we see Pepsi, Nokia, Gap and others, Speilberg is making a statement about advertising and where its heading. He was sticking it to the same advertisers who gave his movie $25 million. Smart man.

And I really don't see what the big deal is here, Steven is obviously a fan of SW, so it would only be natural that he would want to help Lucas out in some way. (I seem to remember an article where Lucas said Steven helped and encouraged him after he was so sure ANH was a failure.) Its nothing more than some playful banter between two friends....

 

I think Quentin Tarantino should have directed Episode II. He's worked with Sam Jackson before and his vision would have been refreshing for AOTC. Especially the diner scene.

 

Darth Fierce: Thanks for bringing new controversy to this thread."

Oh, that just comes naturally for me

"Explain what a "free pass" means."

I just meant that in the harsh times we live in, it's unusual for the media, critics, and fans to abstain from attacking anyone if they fall short of "expectations". Now, I agree that the fact that Scooby Doo is more successful than MR is horrifying, but such comparisons are used all the time to critique movie-makers. But so far Spielberg seems to be ammune.

I share your respect for Spielberg. I didn't mean any criticism towards him or either movie. It's just interesting to note that he's escaped what many others have not.

 

I know and indie film maker who I talk to all the time about film. He hates star wars and "big" films in general (like a lot of Speilberg's work). I asked him what he thought of this debate and he brought up an interesting point. Lucas may not be a great writer but Speilberg doesn't write at all. Also, is Speilberg better with actors or does he just pick better actors? My friend feels that Lucas and Speilberg are pretty much equal in skill, but Speilberg starts off with good writing and a solid cast.

It's something to consider, since both directors have a lot of the same influences. Also, there was good acting in American Graffiti were Lucas' cast was loaded with future super stars. People have also noted that Speilbergs camera movements are nicer than Lucas' strait foward aproach. This has little to do with Speilberg. Speilberg's DP is responsible for the awsome cinematography found in Minority Report and Saving Private Ryan. If you notice in other Speilberg films (especially Jurrasic Park and Indie) you can see Speilberg's style is more straitfoward and only shines during the action sequences (much like Lucas').

 

Lucas' style is far from Spielbergs. Both are good in their respective niches. But I'd hate to see them cross over in directing.

 

Lucas may not be a great writer but Speilberg doesn't write at all.

Um, he did write Close Encounters......

 

...And A.I. and POLTERGEIST.

And let's put to rest all this nonsense that Spielberg is unduly influenced by his cinematographer. While Spielberg (like any filmmaker) shares creative input into the look of the movie with the DP, it's false to say that "This has little to do with Speilberg. Speilberg's DP is responsible for the awsome cinematography found in Minority Report and Saving Private Ryan". What hogwash. The director ALWAYS composes the shot and decides on the camera moves, etc. That is the responsibility of the director. PERIOD. End of discussion. In fact, George Lucas refused to work with Gil Taylor again after ANH because Taylor moved a camera angle on him without informing Lucas. No self respecting filmmaker would ever let a DP dictate what composition to use. Remember: Spielberg used to work with the great Vilmos Zsigmond on SUGARLAND EXPRESS and CE3K. They stopped working together because Zsigmond felt that Spielberg had learned so much between the two movies that he was losing his creative input. The same with Allen Daviau. If anything, Spielberg rules the camera roost more than any filmmaker, with the possible exception of Ridley Scott.

So while the DP is responsible for the lighting and overall execution of the look of the movie, it's the director who decides what that look is, a conception that is equally important. Janusz Kaminski was not the person who decided to go guerilla for the D-DAY Invasion. That was Spielberg. Kaminski came up with the right shutter speed to film at, which is crucial to carrying out Spielberg's vision, but he did not create that idea.

In a visual sense, Spielberg's credentials are unimpeachable.