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

CT The Impact of the Star Wars Original Trilogy on Modern Cinema

Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by The Wagonmaster, Nov 3, 2017.

  1. Outsourced

    Outsourced Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2017
    That image isn't CGI. It's made as part of the film's Visual Effects.
     
  2. The Wagonmaster

    The Wagonmaster Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Sep 24, 2017
    I grant that many people would say I have a conservative view on art as a whole. Most people believe art is a thing that constantly evolves and can never truly be bad. I vehemently disagree. Art becomes bad when it becomes so avant-garde that only the artist can understand it -which is what happened to painting, sculpture and novels in the early 20th century- or if it becomes more about making money than carrying an important message, which is what happened to theatre, film, recorded music and comic books in the 1980's. Is it possible for art forms to bounce back? People alive during the Italian Renaissance would say yes, but the fact of the matter is times have changed. For one, the phrase "film is dead" is not an opinion, it's a fact. Movies are all digital now rather than celluloid film stock. Secondly, people are less likely to be excited about anything nowadays unless it doesn't require more effort than downloading an app. We're more likely to see an entire populace living in virtual reality than we are a resurgence of any past art form.

    Is the original Star Wars trilogy a set of bad films? Far from it. But they set the wheels in motion to have an entire industry that plays it safe, is afraid to offend anyone, is completely built around making money instead of telling a good story and is set on milking things dry and beating dead horses because they're proven to please stockholders. Studio heads and record producers of the 20th century, book publishers of the 19th century, art academy masters and theatre chairmen of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, all wanted to make money, for sure, but the difference is that they had the entrepreneurial spirit that's so sorely lacking in today's society; they were willing to take risks.
     
  3. Outsourced

    Outsourced Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Wait, hold on.

    So, because someone wants to profit from their work, they aren't really making art? Is a movie like Hardcore Henry, which is shot entirely in first person, not art because it doesn't have some sort of message even though it's taking risks? Your opinions here confuse me. It seems like your arguments for what art actually is revolves around some very arbitrary and specific guidelines. Not to mention this gem:

    http://filmmakermagazine.com/101600-27-movies-shot-on-35mm-released-in-2016/

    http://filmmakermagazine.com/97320-64-films-released-in-2015-shot-on-35mm/
     
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  4. Jester J Binks

    Jester J Binks Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 19, 2016
    Too much debating like it's a competition as opposed to an exchange of ideas. I'm out.
     
  5. Outsourced

    Outsourced Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Admittedly, that's my fault. Sorry. I love films. They're one of my favorite forms of art, and I get kind of defensive when some tries to say that most of the movies I like aren't actually art, and that the medium I love is dead.
     
    Jester J Binks likes this.
  6. The Wagonmaster

    The Wagonmaster Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Sep 24, 2017
    This two minute video will explain everything:


    Those articles are mostly listing scenes that were shot on celluloid, not entire films. But the short list of directors shooting on film will diminish even more in time. Even Woody Allen is shooting digitally since he signed up with Amazon! Sure, Tarantino n' Pals may be shooting on film, but once they're dead, they'll be practically no one left.
     
  7. Bob the X-Winger

    Bob the X-Winger Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 8, 2016

    Those movies pioneered the visual elements of film making be it the Alien creature or actions scenes in Star Wars. Today it all just that. The story is of secondary importance to the visual cues.
     
  8. Jester J Binks

    Jester J Binks Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 19, 2016
    That's an awesome response Outsourced. We all do it. The problem is never just one person, but the snowball effect thereafter.

    I'm anything but a student of film. Love 'em, can talk to the point where I wonder how I got there in the first place (oh yeah, it's a forum). But I also love a film genre that most film "artists" would consider garbage: comedy. Some of my favorite repeat viewing movies are comedies that are probably considered a less than 5 on a scale of 10 by "critics". Movies are different things to different people. And yet I can also enjoy movies considered "great stuff". Although some just strike me as pretentious wankery.
     
  9. Outsourced

    Outsourced Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Yeah, they pioneered VFX, but, again, why is that necessarily a bad thing? I've brought it up a few times, but Hardcore Henry is a fantastic movie. The plot is garbage, but it's the visuals and cinematography that make it so memorable. Movies are this huge visual art form. Some have good stories, while others don't, and that's not always a bad thing, because they're VISUAL and can be true art based on that alone.

    I feel ya. I can respect a lot of artsy-fartsy stuff, but some of it is pretty hard to sit through. But that's why it's such an amazing medium, because it can be so many different things to so many different people. It's just so varied and incredibly.

    Also, if you love comedies, check out some of the Mel Brooks classics if you haven't already. There's no way they could be made today, but they're absolutely hilarious in my opinion.
     
    Jester J Binks likes this.
  10. The Wagonmaster

    The Wagonmaster Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Sep 24, 2017

    The "auteur theory" is what you're describing, and while it's generally accepted in academic circles, I have some problems with it. Some films are brilliant because of the director only, some films are brilliant because of the editor (A New Hope was saved in post-production by George Lucas' wife editing it), some films have pedestrian direction but brilliant writing, and some films have brilliant actors that can carry a film by themselves.
     
  11. Outsourced

    Outsourced Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Yeah, and I don't see why that's a bad thing. Each film is entirely unique, like snowflakes, and each can be good for completely different ways. Ex Machina is great because of its story and characters, not because the VFX are cool, while something like Kingsmen is a visual feast with a decent plot. That's a good thing.
     
    Jester J Binks likes this.
  12. Jester J Binks

    Jester J Binks Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 19, 2016
    That was a fun video to watch. Zappa usually had some great thoughts to contribute. It is a two-edged sword however as his thoughts of the opinionated gatekeeper could be applied to your view as well.

    There's also a snag in Zappa's concept. There's more than one gatekeeper. And if it is simply about "free market" (put it out there and let people decide), then a gatekeeper (A&R/label) will develop around the market they feel has potential but not being offered. If they are willing to risk their financial stability, they will create that label. Actually knowing people in the music industry, I know plenty that have done just that and have a) lost their a$$ and/or then b) decided to pivot in the hopes that a few "spoon fed" commercial releases will help support the riskier choices. Usually at point b, the ungrateful artist calls them a sell out and swears they were never "about the music".

    The internet is probably the closest thing to a free market art forum. It also has resulted in diminished returns for that same "niche" artist.

    Let me know when you find the answer. You'll make a mint (you friggin' sell out).
     
  13. Bob the X-Winger

    Bob the X-Winger Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 8, 2016

    It is not bad but what we see is CGI to excess and in every genre as i said not just in Sci Fi which you would expect, you have to create those films on screen they would not work any other way. The Spiderman film just could not exist in a world without CGI. Using CGI all the time in my view is bad. The story does not come out well and the cinema should not all be about visuals and no story.
     
  14. Outsourced

    Outsourced Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2017
    But that's NOT what cinema is all about. It's only like that if you're looking at the very surface level, and even then, the movies you're talking about make up a very small portion of even popular movies.

    Again, watch some movies outside of the very mainstream, and you will see amazing things.

    (Also, as a note, you're talking about Visual Effects, not CGI. CGI is pretty exclusively stuff like Toy Story, Moana, etc, that are made entirely in a computer. Visual Effects is stuff that is shot on camera then messed around with in post production)
     
  15. Bob the X-Winger

    Bob the X-Winger Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Yes but the CGI movies are the ones marketed, get the most exposure and critically are Award winning. You might find yourself into certain times of films but the Academy films will be in all the cinemas and sold out. That means the small independent studios won't be able to make movies so we have to rely on the blockbuster to put on the films.
     
  16. Jester J Binks

    Jester J Binks Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 19, 2016
    I grew up watching Blazing Saddles and History of the World: Part 1 (still waiting for Part 2 - Jews in Space and Hitler on Ice :)

    Unfortunately, that's a 1974 and 1981 movie [face_laugh] I didn't like Spaceballs as much as those two classics and being both an MB and SW fan you can bet I wanted it to be amazing. Maybe that was the problem. Raised, preconceived expectations.

    I have to admit, I had to apologize to my friends when I dragged them to go see Dracula: Dead and Loving It. It didn't help when about a year later, I had them paying for Spy Hard. All my street cred had been squandered on those two movies. It took a big save like Boogie Nights a year later to get back my movie picking status.
     
    Outsourced likes this.
  17. Outsourced

    Outsourced Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2017
    ...

    Again, not CGI. Those are animated movies. You're talking about VFX.

    Big effects movies are almost never put into the Oscars. The only one I can think of in recent memories is Mad Max: Fury Road. Just look at last year's awards for Best Picture:
    • “Arrival”
    • “Fences”
    • “Hacksaw Ridge”
    • “Hell or High Water”
    • “Hidden Figures”
    • “La La Land”
    • “Lion”
    • “Manchester by the Sea”
    • WINNER: “Moonlight”
    The only one from here that, to my knowledge, makes extensive usage of VFX is Arrival, and that movie specifically defies the tropes of many big budget sci-fi action adventure movies by taking a down to earth tone.
     
  18. Outsourced

    Outsourced Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Hell, I want Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money.

    A lot of people pan Spaceballs in comparison to the other two, and I will admit that it isn't quite as good as them, but there are some really great standouts in that movie. Rick Moranis is absolutely amazing as Dark Helmet, and I love some of the weird meta humor, like them watching Spaceballs on VHS within the movie.

    Then again, comparing it to the end of Blazing Saddles, where they literally break out of the stage into a completely different movie, I can see where the shortcomings are. Still, some of my favorite movies.
     
  19. Bob the X-Winger

    Bob the X-Winger Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Most of the movies that are being talked in the film forums are all CGI movies. The cinema is full of films that are either reboots of films made in the 70's and 80's. The highest grossing movies are all CGI. You can't help but see CGI being pushed in your face by the Academy and movie promoters and this is very bad for cinema. The smaller studios are being crushed while the large corporations can repackage old movies as ready made franchise. A perfect example would be James Bond Skyfall. Another action packed film which is purely for the visual experience. You want to see a good spy movie you'd have to dust off a few DVD's and Videos of old.
     
  20. Outsourced

    Outsourced Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 10, 2017
    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP USING THE TERM CGI.

    What you are talking about is not CGI. It is VFX. They are completely different. CGI is basically anything that wasn't filmed and added into a scene that was completely constructed in a computer, like the opening of Guardians of the Galaxy 2. VFX is basically anything that was actually filmed, but edited in post, which IS what happens a lot.

    Most shots are a composite of both of these, along with practical SFX. Saying it's just 'All CGI' is wrong.
     
  21. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Nobody needs to apologize for enjoying what they enjoy, and I personally find the idea that “if you listen to this art professor you will become enlightened and realize that the movies that you enjoy are objectively bad” highly offensive.

    People are allowed to like whatever the hell they want to like and do not owe anyone justification for it.

    The Wagonmaster , if you genuinely want a friendly exchange of ideas, drop the pretentiousness and condescension.

    If you just want to tell other users that they are “wrong” for liking movies that you dislike, I see no reason for this thread to stay open.
     
    Bazinga'd and Outsourced like this.
  22. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    And with that, the thread title has been changed.

    Feel free to discuss the impact of Star Wars on cinema as a whole.

    This thread stays open as long as the discussion is an exchange of ideas, not a disparagement of other users’ taste in film or any other discussion of other users rather than the topic.

    @Bazinga’d
     
    Bazinga'd likes this.
  23. darkspine10

    darkspine10 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Dec 7, 2014
    One point: Digital film is still film, it's just shot in a different format, the end result of which is basically indistinguishable from traditional film stock.

    And once again, do people think that films never focused on effects before CGI?

    Look at SW itself, a model work pioneer. Snow White, the first fully animated movie is all about marvelling at the effects of moving art. Toy Story does the same for 3D computer animation. That's arguably the point of all animation, to be visually interesting, otherwise why not use live action? Arguably, all of film is about visual over story, otherwise it could just be a book.

    The only real Genre of film that seems to have died out is traditional 2D hand drawn animation, due to the cheaper costs of 3D, and that still only applies to movies not tv, where 2D is still flourishing.
     
    Qui-Riv-Brid likes this.
  24. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Exactly. For a good Star Wars example it's the take-offs and landing. On the OT it was difficult to do them. It's not that they didn't want to it just wasn't practical for time of production purposes and ability to actually pull it off well. With digital techniques it was now possible to do them as seen with the models of TPM and after that with CGI.

    There I disagree. The dialogue is a cover because they couldn't actually do what they wanted to visually. They would have loved to but instead they needed to tell you what you were seeing because they couldn't actually do it. Even with the level reached in ANH they missed out on many shots and couldn't be addressed until they did the SE's. For stories set in the "real" world it's harder as they can't use VFX the way Star Wars did at the time pre-CGI. A TIE figher or X-Wing don't exist at all so they have to be all fantasy. When doing Top Gun you need to use the actual jets and cutting to model ones isn't going to work that well. Now with CGI you can intercut between the two.

    CGI has improved movies no end for these kind of thing because now you can show people what is going on not tell them with words.

    Which in Star Wars terms takes us to the most bizarre aspect of the new movies and I noted many films now where they sell this idea of a "return to practical effects" and doing things "in-camera".

    This is of course nonsense and really is a sales pitch that with even with a surface level look all falls apart . Star Wars in 1977 was the least in-camera live-action movie of all time at that point as far as I know. Certainly the best known one.
     
    darkspine10 likes this.
  25. Bob the X-Winger

    Bob the X-Winger Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 8, 2016

    Movies concentrate on VFX to the detriment of good storytelling. The movie industry is now left promoting reboots and prequel franchises. Okay there's a market for generic Bond movies, generic action movies and generic superhero movies, in terms of movies that tell a good story though they are in short supply these days and it goes back to the argument i make the small studios that don't have the VFX cannot compete with the massive corporations that can fund VFX movies or as i call them CGI and expect a big profit, Why? They can sale it to foreign markets and the volume will made all the difference.