Why the Double Standard?

oh, double post. darn.

might as well say something.

I'm not stupid, am I?

lol!

 

The media are complete idiots and I hope they all die.

End of rant.

 

On the Gollum Vs Yoda

Once again I am going to bring out my old argument

What was the artist intent and did they successful in that endevor?

Yoda Lucas and IM were attempting to match the ESB Yoda while giving him a slighty bigger rage in emotions to compete with other CGI characters.

Did ILM do as they planed? Yes they did. They didn't want to overshadow the puppet Yoda. Lucas is attempting for the Star Wars to fit eachother. This is the best incarnation of Yoda since ESB. The subtle expression fit Lucas style of acting (ie Looking suspiciously at Palpatine, Skywalker suffering.

Gollum- create a photorealistic character with a wide range of expression to hold his own against actors.

Did WETA succede? Yes, and gloriously so. The charactr did exaclty what Jackson needed..and the animators caught the actors emotions very well. While I dont agree neccissarily with some of the design aspect or the almost overacting on of the character. (Some of the decisions that were chosen were very reminisant of William DeFoe Green Goblin sequence.Which may be strange because they were filmed the same time,weren't they?)


The underlying thing heare is that the two characters had two different purproses and two different director styles behind them. If we did a straight across comparision- Gollums character is more natural actory, where Yoda is more of the stylized acting that fits Star Wars.


Lucas and Campbell

As far as I know, Lucas never mentored with Campbell per se. He read Campbells books and credited them in helping focusing Star Wars (In fact one of the main forces in developing the myth aspect of story.) Campbell loved Star Wars and saw the mythological aspects of Lucas work. He asked Lucas if he could put Luke Skywalker on the cover of his Hero of a Thousand Faces. Lucas, a fan of Campbells, gave his permission.

I believe they did have some form of correspondence for a while, but I do not know for sure.

 

The underlying thing here is that the two characters had two different purproses and two different director styles behind them. If we did a straight across comparision- Gollums character is more natural actory, where Yoda is more of the stylized acting that fits Star Wars.
Good point Lukecash! Both characters serve their purpose from a story and filmmaking aspect.

I firmly beleive that many fans are unable/unwilling to accept the prequels as an equal addition to the SW universe...because it would mean letting go (what GL meant by "The Phantom Menace") of what we've come to understand (or think we do) about the Skywalker family saga.

You don't like the prequels (whatever your reason)...that's fine; and your choice. But what purpose is there to trying to convert the rest of us to your "certain point of view?" Because as you can see...not everyone here is willing to give up their own feelings, just because you say "PT sucks."

 

LOTR showed how great fantasy movies can be in the 21st century. When F/X are integrated into a great story, with quality acting and powerful scenes, they do not stand out, they enhance.

 

"Why is it that when the prequels get criticised for something, LOTR and the Matrix are immune to the criticism of effects and actually get complimented for it?"

the matrix sequels were slammed just as hard if not harder then the PT. The LOTR films are much better then the matrix or the PT and are of the same quality of the OT so people like them better, they have all the adventure and great FX that the OT had so they are well liked, but they also have terrific acting and dialogue which people always complained that SW didn't have. So its no wonder they are beloved by all, whats not to like.

Why is it that when the Lara Croft Tomb raider movies get criticised for something, the Indiana Jones films are immune to the criticism of effects and actually get complimented for it?

 

"Reloaded did get criticised for using bullet-time too much."

thats odd considering there was NO bullet time in either Matrix reloaded or Matrix revolutions.

"The PT's urgency is not even close to what critics expected. I think this is the main issue.

Come Ep. III, I figure more people will start to appreciate the first two. The existance of the human race is not at stake in SW."

if anything it will make TPM and AOTC look worse by comparison (assuming ep3 is good) the same way TPM seemed much better compared to how awful AOTC was.

 

Well I have enjoyed the PT and feel they are superior to LOTR and The Matrix. ROTK for one is over rated. FOTR and TTT were better. Thought it would end a little better then it did. Did not see how this was soo great as everyone is saying. Was disappointed with this and I did not have any expectations for this movie either. I did enjoy it a lot but it is not any masterpeice that some say. Ending way too long. ROTK as a whole is way too long.

 

Why do people think differently to me???

I just don't get it! I thought that LOTR/The Matrix/TPM/AOTC/Yoda/Gollum was better than LOTR/The Matrix/TPM/AOTC/Yoda/Gollum, yet I keep hearing people say that they didn't like the thing that I liked!!! Why does the thing I like get criticised by other people, yet the thing I DON'T like gets praised???

Why the double standard???

I saw this special effect shot in LOTR/The Matrix/TPM/AOTC that looked really fake, yet NOBODY said anything bad about it, yet loads of people said that the effects in LOTR/The Matrix/TPM/AOTC were fake looking but I thought the effects looked perfect!!!

I don't understand how different people can see the same thing as me but come to different conclusions!

The script/acting/special effects/directing in the OT/LOTR/Matrix/Prequel films is just as good as the script/acting/special effects/directing in the OT/LOTR/Matrix/Prequel films. I think it's really hypocritical of people to say that they like the OT/LOTR/Matrix/Prequel films whilst criticising the OT/LOTR/Matrix/Prequel films.

I think the reason people don't like the thing I do is because of the media/following critics/they don't think it's cool to like it/they've lost their inner child/they are nitpicking/they just don't understand how good it really is.

 

The LOTR films are much better then the matrix or the PT and are of the same quality of the OT

Obviously, not everyone agrees.

Why is it that when the Lara Croft Tomb raider movies get criticised for something, the Indiana Jones films are immune to the criticism of effects and actually get complimented for it?

Are shots taken at the LAURA CROFT movies during reviews of the INDIANA JONES movies?

 

Well the Indy films came out over 10 years ago before LCTR existed, so I don't see how they could. But People compare the LCTR filsm to the IJ films in reviews and in conversation and say that they are not as good, so its basically the same thing.

 

"Taste is a term used too often when it comes to art and its appreciation. It's simply wrong to put everything down to Taste.

If somebody asked you whether Mozart or Beethoven was the greater composer then half the people would probably say "Mozart" and the other half "Beethoven". They're both exceptional so it comes down to a question of taste. But if I asked you whether Britney Spears' music was better than Beethoven's then you enter a territory where it's no longer a question of taste. Nobody in their right mind could possibly claim that Spears' music was better no matter how often they claim that "it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it". Yes, you're entitled to it, but the rest of humanity is also entitled to laugh at you for it.
Sushi is by any definition great food. It's not a matter of opinion. Sushi is among the healthiest things you can eat and that's a fact. It's been proven to improve brain power and is good for your blood pressure, reduces the likelyhood of heart diseases etc. On the other hand a McDonald's burger makes you fat, has too much salt, increases blood pressure, bad for cholesterol etc. So nobody in their right mind could say that "in my opinion" a Big Mac is better food than Sushi.
And in a similar vein there are films that are valuable, make you think and stretch your mind. Then there are other films that just feature lots of explosions"

exactly!

 

"PT had too much CGI, is what I always hear, but LOTR had tons of CGI."

But still only a tenth of what the PT has, and when ever CGI could be avoided, it was. It wasn't used for ridiculous things like making stormtroopers for close ups, or inserting a human head onto a clonetrooper body (as is being done for ep3 for the unmasked clones)

PJ had CG orcs in some shots, but whenever possible used costumed actors, if GL had made LOTR I doubt the orcs would be anything but CG, and the hobbits would never be realized through forced perspective and camera tricks, it would all be done with CG and bluescreen.


"For this to be the case, ILM would have to create the effects first, and Lucas would have to write narrative and dialogue to fit the shots."

But thats not far from the case. The animatics guys planned the whole clonewar battle and the sets for ep3 were built before the first draft of the script was completed, in addition RM said GL would visit the department to get ideas for the scripts.

 

rebelscumb
thats odd considering there was NO bullet time in either Matrix reloaded or Matrix revolutions.

As I understand it - 'bullet time' refers to those moments where the action slows down and the camera does those impossible arcs around the action. I loved Reloaded btw.

JenX - that post was... brilliant!

g

 

I have to jump in and say that although I believe the LOTR films have been executed better than the PT has, in terms of acting, editing, and directing, I think the story of Star Wars, in its entirety, is superior to that of LOTR, and here's why:

The central focus of the LOTR story is the ring itself. The ring represents power, but it is inert. The characters all revolve around the ring itself, and their actions and reactions to the ring form the essence of the story.

In SW, on the other hand, the central focus is a person - Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. The story is about the transformations of his life, and his eventual redemption. There is no character in LOTR who's character arc comes close to the complexity of Anakin's. The closest is probably Gollum. Every character in LOTR is either good or evil. Some of them come close to the edge, and they do face conflicting situations, but the good guys are good, and the bad guys are bad.

Nothing in the LOTR story provokes the reader/viewer to question the very idea of good vs. evil, in the way that SW does, with the character arc of Anakin.

Just my 2 cents, bring on the flames!

 

a valid point, though I've never really bought into the idea that SW is about Anakin/Vader.

Granted LOTR as a story is rife with flaws, especially in the books, as a good friend once said, Tolkien was the worst writer of great book in history. He seemed to have no sense of pacing or foreshadowing, etc.

However I think the movies have in many ways (though certainly not all) improved upon the LOTR story while remaining faithful to the core material for the most part.

I don't feel the PT is very faithful to the OT nor do I feel it is executed well in many instances, though there remains a lot of potential inherent in the material to tell a good story, it just isn't being mined IMHO

"As I understand it - 'bullet time' refers to those moments where the action slows down and the camera does those impossible arcs around the action."

Yeah, but other then trinity going out the window at the opening of reloaded this never happened in the sequels.

 

" Those who bash the PT's story are not looking at it carefully enough. They just assume it's bad because it's not what they expected it to be, or it's not enough of a rehash of the OT.
I stand by my view that AOTC has the best story of any SW movie.

- Sorry, but I don't agree.
The basic story, the ideas (some of them anyway) of the PT may be good.
It's how that story is told - the execution of those ideas - that really counts. How those ideas are worked out and told - put on screen.
This is what many people, including myself, have problems with.

And the last thing I want is a rehash of the OT. There are already too many recycled OT things in the PT.

I think the story of ANH is the best.
Yes it's simple and straight forward. It's also timeless, powerful, and well told.
The basic story of AOTC is nice, but what ended up in the script and on screen is a bit of a mess imo."

agreed sillyname, agreed.

And your right, one of the biggest problems with the PT is that it IS a rehash of the OT, it rides on the coat tailes of the OT.

"The story of LOTR is purely simple. An evil ring exists - they must destroy it in one place. Essentially, it is nothing more than a chase.

The PT story is certainly more complex. The dark side of the force is growing. How, the Jedi don't know. The possible savior to balance the force is being seduced by this dark force only to eventually succumb to it to the near doom of everyone. How and why he gets there is ultimatly the crux of the PT."

well those are the plots, not the stories. The story of LOTR has almost nothing to do with destroying the ring. And I wouldn't say the PT is more complex, pure good guy switches to pure evil (primarily offscreen between the first and second episodes) its just told in a very complicated convoluted way. Its about as political as Legally Blond2:red white and blond.


"Again, I think you're looking at this the wrong way...as children, we grew up on SW because it was a story that we could get wrappe dup in. Only now (as adults) so many are EXPECTING (almost demanding) that SW change to a more adult audience. This "standard" of an "adult genre" cannot be applied to the entire SW saga...because the audience has changed over the years."

not really because everything else I grew up with now seems like crap. Kids have no standards, they like event he worst pieces of crap, yet if soemthing is good it will stand the test of time. Strictlys peaking I don't think the PT are good kids movies, for one they are too violent, and secondly they lack any message or relevant values that kids can benefit from. Its just alot of masterbatory action.

The other primary flaw in your logic is that many of the people who like the OT saw it as adults, not kids. My dad was 27 when he saw ANH, he loves the OT but could care less about the PT. I first saw ROTJ when I was 7 or 8, and then Saw ESB a year later and then ANH 2 or 3 years after that. But I didn't really get into SW until I was probably 16 or 17. And this is true of a lot of people.

And taking the OT out of the equation entirely, I don't think AOTC works even on the level as a sequel to TPM, I think it fails to live up to, or connect with the much maligned (though I like it) movie which immediately proceeded it. TPM still has the better FX of the two, as well as the better story, editing, dialogue, acting and directing.

 

"Peter Jackson can always blame Tolkien. Lucas can only blame himself."

Actually he usually blames us for not getting it. Its always are fault if something isn't understood or appreciated in the PT. Jackson/walsh/boyens are a lot more respectful/apologetic/appreciative of fans.

 

But People compare the LCTR filsm to the IJ films in reviews and in conversation and say that they are not as good, so its basically the same thing.

It's not the same in that shots are not being taken at LAURA CROFT movies in reviews for INDIANA JONES movies. And, yes, I know the INDIANA JONES movies came out first. If what you say is true, shots are being taken at the LAURA CROFT movies in reviews for LAURA CROFT movies, not in reviews for other movies. That's my point.

But still only a tenth of what the PT has, and when ever CGI could be avoided, it was. It wasn't used for ridiculous things like making stormtroopers for close ups, or inserting a human head onto a clonetrooper body (as is being done for ep3 for the unmasked clones)

Never have understood the hang-ups against the use of CGI. Artist choice. Artist knows their own motivations better than outsiders, better than anyone else.

 

not use, but over use.

 

not use, but over use.

I know. That's what I was refering to. I didn't know there was a rule stating how much CGI could be used before it is over use.

 

when it becomes a distraction

 

when it becomes a distraction

A distraction for who? Because there are people that do not find it a distraction at all.

 

yes but there are many who do.

 

Nothing in the LOTR story provokes the reader/viewer to question the very idea of good vs. evil

Your joking...right? Please tell me your joking...



~ICeBReaKeR
...but why is the RUM gone?!