Why is Lucas so pesimistic about Episode 3's box office potentital?

Discussion in 'Revenge of the Sith (Non-Spoilers)' started by seasider, Apr 4, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. muymaul Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 24, 1999
    star 2
    SkiHoth, I am sorry, but I have to agree with Ekenobi. The IMDB in no way represents a sampling of the general public. As you said, many polls are taken to get the best sampling of the general public they can. But as we know, these samples are not always accurate (look at the many election results which differ from what the polls said they would be). Still, these types of polls, as those done professionally by NY Times or Gallop, try to get as large and diverse a sample as they can to ensure they aren't overlooking something. As I said before, IMDB samples only those people who visit the site and care to vote, which is not a diverse sample.

    Think of it this way. Say I wanted to take a poll on something and all I did was go to churches, for example, and allow the people there to vote on the poll. Now is that an accurate sample of the general public? Of course not. I am not adding into my sample anyone who does NOT go to church. In the same way, how can one say that a web site, which requires one to have an internet connection and a desire to vote on the polls, samples the general public? One can't.

  2. SkiHoth Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Nov 22, 2002
    muymaul,

    Why don't you read how imdb does their sampling instead of just assuming you understand it? They use statistical sampling to represent the general public by leveling the actual demographics who voted. Why do you think you have to register with imdb in the first place? This helps in accurate sampling.

    And if you haven't been paying attention to the news recently, the Internet has become as diverse as the general public in the past few years - the demographics in Internet users is statistically the same as the general public. Again, do a little more research before making assumptions.
  3. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    But he's said that he never said there was going to be nine films, which was a lie. Besides that, he also says that he originally wanted Greedo to shoot first, yet never offers any kind of explanation whatsoever as to why he didn't do it that way.

    He said that the original concept early early on was for nine films, but since he never actually drafted any outlines past episode 6, it never went past that. However, the media blew it out of proportion all but saying he promised to make nine films which is when he made the definitive statement that there would only ever be six films, although he does reserve the right to make Episodes 7, 8, and 9 if he feels like it in 20 years.

    As for the Greedo shooting first, he said that when shooting the scene in 1976, the pyrotechniques crew never did get the timing right, so he had to edit it the best he could which ended up making the sequence of events vague (really, in the original cut it could have gone either way).

    Overall, among detractors, what are the most often heard complaints about the prequels? Wooden acting and a focus on effects instead of story.

    And those were the biggest complaints from people who reviewed the original films even if their overall impression was otherwise favorable. What's your point?

    Way to downplay being completely wrong. By focusing on bullet-time, you proved how effective their real innovations were. What, do they have to make it known to you that the backrounds were CG?

    That's their innovation? Please. Lucas and ILM pioneered compeletely digital backgrounds with the first instance ever committed to film in 1994 in LucasFilm's RADIOLAND MURDERS with other examples prevelant throughout Lucas' YOUNG INDIANA JONES TV series. This innovation was taken to the next with the 1997 STAR WARS Special Edition releases and perfected in the prequels.

    However, I think it's funny that you defend one of the most distractingly obvious gimmick effects ever in the history of film by claiming that it did its job of covering up the considerably less revolutionary digital backgrounds. Way to go, Wachowskis! [face_laugh]
  4. Philip023 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2002
    star 3
    First of all - Garth, Insidious - great posts.

    Muymaul: if in fact imbd uses weighting in their polling, then their polling is probably to some degree, accurate. HOWEVER, unless there was a poll taken that took a REPRESENTATIVE sample of the population (done through random sampling - like going through a phone book and picking every 4th number) then I think there would be some statistical anomalies in their sampling. However, even if it wasn't a random sampling at imbd, their standard of error would still have to be over 6% to be a bad poll.

    On to ESB: well I've read alot on Empire. Not to bash Lucas but he was probably less involved in that film than in any other SW made. Kurtz and Lucas somehow, somewhere had a falling out and from what I understand, their parting was amicable. Hey, Irvin Kirshner didn't entirely get along with Lucas either but both have mutual respect for each other.

    On SW gushers: they love the films. they live the films. I suppose they are the ones that keep the mystique going to a certain extent. However, apart from personal opinion and a poll from Gallup, the only way to assess the general popularity of a film is through the mediums we have been discussing. IMBD, yahoo, rotten tomatos, etc. And on these sites - the proof is in the numbers. Saying these sites don't count is not an argument. Its all we have to go on!
  5. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    And on these sites - the proof is in the numbers. Saying these sites don't count is not an argument. Its all we have to go on!

    The problem is, they don't really prove anything. They're a nice jumping off point for discussion, but to build an entire argument around them is pretty weak.
  6. gezvader28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 22, 2003
    star 4
    Durwood -
    since he never actually drafted any outlines past episode 6, it never went past that.

    George Lucas Oct. 29th 1979 -
    There are essentially nine films in a series of three trilogies. I have story treatments on all nine.

    So it would seem George Lucas would disagree with you there, Durwood.
  7. Philip023 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 30, 2002
    star 3
    Durwood: sure they do.

    Apart from personal opinion, what else have we?

    I mean, this isn't a discussion about Mid East peace, right? Nuke disarmament. Nothing that important. So if there are avenues to guage public opinion, then we have to go with them in the absence of anything else.

    They prove that LOTR are more widely considered better movies than the sw prequels. It doesn't ask why or how they are better, just which one WAS better. True that is subjective, but so is opinion and when we have forums and polls that guage opinion, then they may accurately guage public opinion.
  8. DamonD Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 22, 2002
    star 6
    This whole thing has gone so way off-topic I don't think it could touch the original point of the thread with a 20-foot bargepole.
  9. Darth_Insidious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2002
    star 4
    He said that the original concept early early on was for nine films, but since he never actually drafted any outlines past episode 6, it never went past that. However, the media blew it out of proportion all but saying he promised to make nine films which is when he made the definitive statement that there would only ever be six films, although he does reserve the right to make Episodes 7, 8, and 9 if he feels like it in 20 years.

    See gezvader's post for his exact quote. He did say he was going to do nine films, and then years later, he says he never intended to. That would make him a liar.

    As for the Greedo shooting first, he said that when shooting the scene in 1976, the pyrotechniques crew never did get the timing right, so he had to edit it the best he could which ended up making the sequence of events vague (really, in the original cut it could have gone either way).

    Forgive me, but bull****. I never heard of any problems getting the pyrotechniques to work with Greedo shooting first, and not one single draft of ANH calls for this. He could've just said he changed his mind about the scene when doing the S.E.'s, but he said he always intended to do it that way. That would make him a liar. Two times over.

    And those were the biggest complaints from people who reviewed the original films even if their overall impression was otherwise favorable. What's your point?

    Right, and obviously these detriments weren't so bad that they ruined the overall experience. With the prequels, the same is not true. I'll freely admit the OT had it's share of bad dialogue, but there's more of it in TPM or AOTC than there is in the entire OT.

    That's their innovation? Please. Lucas and ILM pioneered compeletely digital backgrounds with the first instance ever committed to film in 1994 in LucasFilm's RADIOLAND MURDERS with other examples prevelant throughout Lucas' YOUNG INDIANA JONES TV series. This innovation was taken to the next with the 1997 STAR WARS Special Edition releases and perfected in the prequels.

    Digital backrounds were not perfected until The Matrix, though yes, George did explore them way before Gaeta and his team did, which was his primary motivation in doing Radioland Murders I believe. It makes no difference, as it was Gatea and his team that perfected it, using image based rendering. Before either prequel came out.

    However, I think it's funny that you defend one of the most distractingly obvious gimmick effects ever in the history of film by claiming that it did its job of covering up the considerably less revolutionary digital backgrounds. Way to go, Wachowskis!

    Jesus tapdancing Christ, bullet-time wasn't a distraction from the real brilliant effects work of the digital backrounds. It was there to heighten the unreality of The Matrix. It was supposed to be obvious. It was supposed to grab your attention.

    You were distracted all on your own. And it's proof of how well-done the effects in The Matrix are when you don't even realize when the backround ones are being used.

    Every indication we have points to LOTR being more well-recieved than the prequels. Nobody's telling you you can't prefer the PT to the Rings, but just accept the fact that LOTR was received better on the whole.
  10. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    There are essentially nine films in a series of three trilogies. I have story treatments on all nine.

    He also said a long time ago that parts 7, 8, and 9 were compressed and all the key elements were presented in RETURN OF THE JEDI. That's why there are only six films, because what existed of the last three have already been incorporated into the story.

    And again, this isn't an example of Lucas "lying" but simply exercising his right to change his mind. If this is a crime then it's the first I've heard of it.
  11. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    Darth_Insidious:

    Doesn't it strike you as a bit petty that you can only defend your arguments by calling Lucas a liar? Or perhaps you think unwarranted personal attacks are perfectly acceptable way of "proving" your point. Ironically, your calling Lucas a liar says far more about you than it does Lucas.
  12. ObiWanAragorn Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2003
    star 1
    I don't know if the third movie in a trilogy usually is the lowest at the box office, but at least for the OT, ROTJ wasn't the lowest. Check www.boxofficemojo.com. For the OT, the highest is ANH with $460,998,007, then ROTJ with $309,306,177, and then ESB with $290,475,067.

    (Although, this is the unadjusted for inflation version, so it's not exactly super accurate.)

    Anyway, for the PT, I think that Episode III will make more than AOTC but not as much as TPM. That's just me guessing, though.
  13. Darth_Insidious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2002
    star 4
    It makes absolutely no difference what was going to be in those other three films.

    He didn't say "I originally was going to do three films, but then I decided to incorporate the story elements for them into Return of the Jedi". If he had, no problem. No problem with him changing his mind either. Just don't lie and say that "I never said I was going to do 9 films". And don't say "I always wanted Greedo to shoot first". I notice that you conveniently ignored that one.
  14. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    He didn't lie. He simply meant there weren't supposed to be three additional films after Jedi. That's all the meant.

    And saying that he always wanted Greedo to shoot first isn't a lie unless you can conclussively prove otherwise.

    Honestly, don't you realize just how petty this makes you seem to keep accusing Lucas of being a liar? I mean, it's one thing to not like his movies, but these unwarranted attacks on his character are pretty childish.
  15. DamonD Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 22, 2002
    star 6
    *makes a mental note never to annoy Darth_Insidious about anything*

    Hey ObiWanAragorn, you're probably better off posting that in the box office predictions thread instead. It's kinda gone off the beaten track in a big way here.
  16. Darth_Insidious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2002
    star 4
    lie- a false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood

    "There are essentially nine films in a series of three trilogies. I have story treatments on all nine."

    - George Lucas, 1979

    "I never had a story for the sequels, for the later ones."

    - George Lucas, 1998

    That specific kind of falacy is called "revisionist history". It is a lie. No getting around it, no discounting it, no arguing over it; it was an outright lie.

    Now, as for the Greedo situation:

    a) Not one single draft of ANH, not one, has ever called for Greedo shooting first.

    b) "Well, he can say that was his original intention, but we could have shot it that way very easily. There was no reason that it couldn't have been shot that way. It was shot and edited the way it was because that's the way the script was. That's what he wanted at the time."

    - Gary Kurtz, who was on the set of ANH, who has not been shown to invoke revisionist history, a la George.

    That makes two cases of George being caught in a lie.

    You know what's petty? You defending the mans lies because you'd rather pretend they were never said.
  17. muymaul Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 24, 1999
    star 2
    SkiHoth and Philip023, thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that there is some weighting to the IMDB poll. I believe you are talking about this, which is listed at the end of the Top 250 poll,

    "The formula for calculating the top 250 films gives a true Bayesian estimate:
    weighted rank (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C
    where:
    R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)
    v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
    m = minimum votes required to be listed in the top 250 (currently 1250)
    C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 6.9)
    note: for this top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered."

    This does some weighting to ensure the voting is "fair" in the sense of their own internal poll. It has nothing to do with the general public. There are no demographics taken into account. I am registered with IMDB and checked my personal details again and the only information it asks is gender, date of birth, and country of residence. These in no way are taken into account in the weighting and in any case filling out this information is totally optional. Therefore, true demographics are not taken into account in the voting (unless there is something else I am missing on the site).

    The bottom line is that even though the internet is becoming more accessible to the general public, polls like those on IMDB do not accurately sample the general public. It only samples those people who know about the website, who care to register, and then who care to vote on the movies. This is a very select group of people. There are many people I know of who do not visit IMDB, much less vote on the site.

    As far as saying that well, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. are all we have so we have to use them even though they don't really sample the general public doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Why use something that you know is wrong to try and make an argument? It is impossible to truly say how a movie is viewed by the general public. There is no accurate way to measure this. In the end, anyone can use pseudo-numbers to boost their arguments. For example, the LOTR movies are much more critically acclaimed than the HP movies, yet worldwide the HP movies have taken in more at the box office (according to the numbers at boxofficmojo.com, where I summed up the domestic and international numbers). Which one really says what the general public thinks about the movies? The one way I can think of to measure how something is viewed by the public is to look at the impact a movie, book, etc., had on the culture, but that takes years. It was clear how well the OT was viewed by the general public due to how ingrained it became in the (American) culture. (I can't speak for other countries.)

    However, if there are others who believe the IMDB, etc. are an accurate way of surveying the general public, they are free to have their opinion. It is also clear that opinions on either side won't be changed and this isn't the appropriate thread to be discussing these things anyway.



  18. Clonetrooper1000 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 24, 2003
    star 3
    Darth_Insodious: "He did say he was going to do nine films, and then years later, he says he never intended to"

    His original intention was to do six. His final intention was to do six. In preparation of ESB, he was considering how far to go with the story, and with Kurtz sat down an knocked out a list of "notes" on a possible third trilogy. At one point he obviously was more in the frame of mind to attempt to do these extra three based on these notes. The only mistake he had made was calling them "treatments" because they were not well debeloped enough for that and never constitiuted an actual story. They were a list of notes that can actually be found on-line somewhere. Instead he reverted back to his original conception of a 6-part saga, of which he clearly stated before ANH was even released. He never lied. A human being can change his mind, and to constantly accuse him of lying is slander.

    DI: "That would make him a liar. Two times over."

    More slander. If you have no appreciation for the creator then you also have no appreciation for his work. Are you really a Star Wars fan? I cannot see it. Perhaps you would be better off somewhere-else.

    DI: "there's more of it in TPM or AOTC than there is in the entire OT."

    There was perhaps some poorer dialogue in TPM, but to say AOTC then you have no idea what you are talking about. Its written in a particular style that suits the film. The reason you do not see that in the OT is because we have become so used to the lines we take them for granted. ANH and TPM has some of the poorer dialogue in the saga - IN TERMS OF REALISM. But if you think SW is supposed to be an excercise in screen realism then you have completely mis-judged it, DI. The dialogue in all 5 films have perfectly suited the SW saga.

    DI: "Digital backrounds were not perfected until The Matrix"

    [face_laugh] What planet are you from? 'Perfected' in the Matrix. The digital background of the 'real world' which is the only comparable CG backdrop of a 'created world' like those in SW was way below average. Sit down and look at it. Its one of the poorest aspects of the films VFX. Considering the fact that darkness helps make the FX more unoticable. There is no sign of interaction in this enviroment. Now watch AOTC where Obi-Wan is on the droid flying through Coruscant or Obi-Wan walking through the 100% CG tunnels on Kamino. That is quality VFX.

    DI: "It makes no difference, as it was Gatea and his team that perfected it, using image based rendering."

    If image-based rendering is so succesful then why do most big-budget effects studios like ILM and Weta continue to use digital composites and mattes and NOT IMR?

    DI: "digital backrounds"

    Stop going on about 'backgrounds'. There is a big difference between backgrounds and enviroments. Enviroments include interaction with the characters and objects. Digital enviroments in TPM and AOTC are a completely different level of effects from some backgrounds in Matrix which I've already said were not top-class effects.
  19. Durwood Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 18, 2002
    star 5
    "There are essentially nine films in a series of three trilogies. I have story treatments on all nine."

    - George Lucas, 1979

    "I never had a story for the sequels, for the later ones."

    - George Lucas, 1998


    You know what would be cool? If you had the actual context from which those quotes were taken.

    [face_plain]

    Edit: Thank you, Clonetrooper1000.
  20. Darth_Insidious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2002
    star 4
    His original intention was to do six. His final intention was to do six. In preparation of ESB, he was considering how far to go with the story, and with Kurtz sat down an knocked out a list of "notes" on a possible third trilogy. At one point he obviously was more in the frame of mind to attempt to do these extra three based on these notes. The only mistake he had made was calling them "treatments" because they were not well debeloped enough for that and never constitiuted an actual story. They were a list of notes that can actually be found on-line somewhere. Instead he reverted back to his original conception of a 6-part saga, of which he clearly stated before ANH was even released. He never lied. A human being can change his mind, and to constantly accuse him of lying is slander.

    Ridiculous. He directly contradicts what he said 20 years ago. No amount of twisting ot turning will change that.

    And no amount of ignoring the Greedo lie will make that go away either.

    More slander. If you have no appreciation for the creator then you also have no appreciation for his work. Are you really a Star Wars fan? I cannot see it. Perhaps you would be better off somewhere-else.

    It isn't slander, it's the truth. I have an appreciation for the OT, I have an appreciation for American Grafitti, and I have an appreciation for what George Lucas actually did accomplish, which is about half as much of what many of you give him credit for. Don't tell me what I appreciate and what I don't.

    There was perhaps some poorer dialogue in TPM, but to say AOTC then you have no idea what you are talking about. Its written in a particular style that suits the film. The reason you do not see that in the OT is because we have become so used to the lines we take them for granted. ANH and TPM has some of the poorer dialogue in the saga - IN TERMS OF REALISM. But if you think SW is supposed to be an excercise in screen realism then you have completely mis-judged it, DI. The dialogue in all 5 films have perfectly suited the SW saga.

    I first saw the OT when the THX remastered VHS's were released, so the "Too young to have any problems with the dialogue, and you hold the PT to a higher standard that the OT never set" argument isn't going to work. A particular style that suits the film? Sorry buddy. Serious dialogue isn't supposed to make people laugh at loud, nor is any of it supposed to make people cringe with embarassment. And it most certainly isn't supposed to make you which the characters would just shut up.

    What planet are you from? 'Perfected' in the Matrix. The digital background of the 'real world' which is the only comparable CG backdrop of a 'created world' like those in SW was way below average. Sit down and look at it. Its one of the poorest aspects of the films VFX. Considering the fact that darkness helps make the FX more unoticable. There is no sign of interaction in this enviroment. Now watch AOTC where Obi-Wan is on the droid flying through Coruscant or Obi-Wan walking through the 100% CG tunnels on Kamino. That is quality VFX.

    You're joking. Realistic digital backrounds, which George is still trying to get done right NOW, were already done with this film. The Matrix didn't need the kind of backrounds like Coruscant or Kamino. What it needed was realistic-looking backrounds that wouldn't take the viewer out of the film. And judging by your total and complete lack of knowledge that those backrounds were fake, they did their jobs perfectly.

    If image-based rendering is so succesful then why do most big-budget effects studios like ILM and Weta continue to use digital composites and mattes and NOT IMR?

    How the hell should I know? Does that prove anything at all? No. What worked for Gaeta and his team might not be everyone else's cup of tea. It doesn't take anything away from how well it ws utilized in The Matrix.

    Stop going on about 'backgrounds'. There is a big difference between backgrounds and enviroments. Enviroments include interaction with the
  21. Shelley Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 5
    More slander. If you have no appreciation for the creator then you also have no appreciation for his work. Are you really a Star Wars fan? I cannot see it. Perhaps you would be better off somewhere-else.

    AMEN!

    Good work, Clonetrooper and Durwood and anyone else who's brave enough to wade through Darth_Insidious's posts. I certainly don't have the stomach for it.
  22. Darth_Insidious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2002
    star 4
    Oh the irony! You can't stomach wading through my posts?

    [face_laugh]
  23. Clonetrooper1000 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 24, 2003
    star 3
    DI: "Ridiculous. He directly contradicts what he said 20 years ago"

    His original intention was 6. When he said that he was contemplating another trilogy he was because he had created a list of notes to base it on- therefore he WAS NOT LYING. He then never went through with it and returned to the original idea of 6. He merely has changed his intentions. When he said he never had a story he is not lying because we know he had nothing beyond those few notes - therefore he WAS NOT LYING. He merely changed his mind again.

    DI: "and I have an appreciation for what George Lucas actually did accomplish, which is about half as much of what many of you give him credit for"

    So then tell me what you think he accomplished? Nobody can understanf this stance without an explanation and that is all I will ask for.

    DI: "Serious dialogue isn't supposed to make people laugh at loud, nor is any of it supposed to make people cringe with embarassment."

    I never said ONCE that it was supposed to be serious and much of the dialogue is not supposed to be serious anyway. :confused:

    If you look at many of the critisicm of the OT, they mention the dialogue as a weakness. However, we had films with such a sense of wonder and imagination that most people did not care and they came to believe that the dialogue was supposed to be like that anyway. The same goes for the PT.

    DI: "And judging by your total and complete lack of knowledge that those backrounds were fake, they did their jobs perfectly."

    Tell me, grand almighty insidious WHAT specific backgrounds I did not realise? Use quotes to prove your point as well, Darth Slanderous.

    DI: "What worked for Gaeta and his team might not be everyone else's cup of tea. It doesn't take anything away from how well it ws utilized in The Matrix."

    We are not talking about how well the effects are used, DI, we are talking about the level of effects. Hell, Gaeta could have used cartoons or back-projection and it could have been done well. The techniques I was refering to was what ones were superior when it comes to this particular aspect of VFX and there use for similar jobs is an indication of there success.

    DI: "Do I honestly care if you think they were top-class effects?"

    Tell me how this opinion differs from you thinking The Matrix backgrounds were top-class effects. I seriously want to know why these opinions should not be equally accepted. I have a funny feeling you will use this kind of comment when you cannot make a constructive one. ;)

    Get a grip, Darth Slanderous! [face_laugh]
  24. advent Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 23, 2003
    star 2
    What the hell is this? Since when are filmmakers held to the same standard as politicians? It's like Lucas promised that he'd cut taxes (or something more serious) and now is being vilified for not fulfilling his promise. This is getting ridiculous. I've been continually mysified by Star Wars fans.

    This has nothing to do with box office....

    Lucas is pesimistic because he's a realist about people's (the general audience, not Star Wars fanatics) tastes in cinema.

    I find it easy to understand that view and I agree with him, although there are always exceptions and surprises.

    *leaves before the next attack*
  25. Darth_Insidious Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2002
    star 4
    His original intention was 6. When he said that he was contemplating another trilogy he was because he had created a list of notes to base it on- therefore he WAS NOT LYING. He then never went through with it and returned to the original idea of 6. He merely has changed his intentions. When he said he never had a story he is not lying because we know he had nothing beyond those few notes - therefore he WAS NOT LYING. He merely changed his mind again.

    He said he had story outlines for nine films. Twenty years later, he said he never had story outlines for nine films. That would be a lie.

    And again, the Greedo thing goes ignored.

    So then tell me what you think he accomplished? Nobody can understanf this stance without an explanation and that is all I will ask for.

    - dragged elements of presentation kicking and screaming into a new era
    - set the standard for the modern action/adventure film
    - one of the principal creators of the films that have invaded American pop-culture more than any others
    - tremendous producer, storywriter and editor, competent director
    - the only living director who can best be compared to Walt Disney

    I never said ONCE that it was supposed to be serious and much of the dialogue is not supposed to be serious anyway.

    I know that YOU didn't say it. I'M saying that the serious the much of the serious dialogue sounds laughably bad.

    If you look at many of the critisicm of the OT, they mention the dialogue as a weakness. However, we had films with such a sense of wonder and imagination that most people did not care and they came to believe that the dialogue was supposed to be like that anyway. The same goes for the PT.

    But obviously the same doesn't go for the PT, or else it would've been recieved as well as the OT, and by all indications we can go by, it wasn't. With the OT, while it had its fair share of bad dialogue, it wasn't enough to detract from the rest of the films.

    Tell me, grand almighty insidious WHAT specific backgrounds I did not realise? Use quotes to prove your point as well, Darth Slanderous.

    Obviously if you had realized that the backrounds that used IBR were fake, you would've pointed it out. Instead, you focused completely on bullet-time, and your feeling of surprise (and annoyance) was palpable when you first replied after I had told you about IBR.

    I could make a nasty comment about your feelings for Lucas by calling you Bonetrooper, but that just wouldn't be very nice.

    We are not talking about how well the effects are used, DI, we are talking about the level of effects. Hell, Gaeta could have used cartoons or back-projection and it could have been done well. The techniques I was refering to was what ones were superior when it comes to this particular aspect of VFX and there use for similar jobs is an indication of there success.

    It isn't about the level of the effects, it's about how well they are used in the filn. You still don't get that do you? The prequels can throw CG into every damn scene in the films, and it still wouldn't be good use of effects if it didn't a) move the viewer, or b) not be noticable, depeinding on the intention behind the specific effect.

    Tell me how this opinion differs from you thinking The Matrix backgrounds were top-class effects. I seriously want to know why these opinions should not be equally accepted. I have a funny feeling you will use this kind of comment when you cannot make a constructive one.

    Probably because my opinions are much more wll-supported than yours. The Matrix won the visual effects awards over TPM and the reviews don't point out how fake the backrounds look.

    That's up against you uninformed and biased opinion of the backrounds in The Matrix looking fake, which you suspiciously didn't even mention until I brought up the fact that you were focusing on bullet-time, which wasn't even the real innovation, but IBR.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.