ST George Lucas' visual creativity was noticeably absent - and not in a good way

Yes it's a really really big cityscape. & it was cool but I'm not sure it was super creative. It borrowed alot from Blade Runner & the Fifth Element. Also the scene at Hosnian Prime in TFA looked every bit as interesting. That was a cityscape too.

To evoke the hero's journey of Anakin & Luke. I'd have thought that was obvious.

 

Hosnian Prime and wherever Luke is (Rakata Prime maybe?) had unique looks about them.

 

For a world to be habitable by humans (or humanoids) it is kinda required that the world is earth-like. You could make it look like Mercury, but who'd actually live there?

 

I respectfully disagree with the original post. While I do believe that Mr. Lucas is a creative and talented artist, I don't feel that TFA suffered from his absence. Its aesthetic was remarkably worn out and lived in, and in my opinion, it was a seamless blend of the fantastic and the mundane. Lucas' vision as of his most recent films, was gorgeous but somewhat removed; like something you could admire but not touch, whereas TFA is like an old toy whose packaging got thrown away on Christmas morning. It's something you could see and play with.

 

It's the first movie in a new trilogy, that's where these points start to fail. What fantastical worlds did you see in the first movie of Star Wars? Please enlighten me?

The OT had cool places like Cloud city but it also had places that were built within the realm of reality. There will probably be a mix, and they show a beautiful city scape planet in this movie ...but it gets destroyed, I also LOVED Maz's planet, and the planet Luke was on. You don't see much but they were both beautiful in their own ways.

Not everything has to look fantastical for it to be good. Otherwise George kept it safe in the OT with his sand planet, snow planet, and tree planet....and returning to the sand planet again. I didn't fault him for that, the movies were great and the locations were believable and great. Nothing was needed for this movie in terms of this, it was the first in a series of movies.

 

I agree. I want more weird worlds, really, I'm sick of deserts. I'm sick of grasslands. I'm REALLY sick of ice planets.

 

I totally agree. Star Wars without Lucas is dead so far.

 

I don't agree Mr Turds.

 

I disagree Mr Turds - It has been reinvigorated!!

 

A sentence that could only exist on the internet!


/derailment

 

Star Wars didn't need to be 'reinvigorated'.

TFA is a very good movie; it just isn't Star Wars as it ought to be and as I prefer it, which is why I can't rank it higher than any of the other previous films, which, for better or worse, are very much representative of the things that make the SW franchise different from other Sci-Fi properties.

 

Completely disagree. Star Wars is back for the 1st time since the 80's.

 

Tatooine is earthlike. We have deserts on Earth, boring!

Naboo is earthlike. George Lucas filmed a whole bunch of it from locations where he likes to holiday in Greece. How unimaginative!

Matching stalagmites on Tatooine and Geonosis was a bizzare visual choice that did more to confuse the viewer than have any thematic impact!

Lucas' idea of a planet being one type of biome is tired and uninspired after x movies.

My honest reaction to TFA when I briefly considered this was that it was slightly on the unimaginative side. Slightly. It's the resistance system that makes me think something else could have added. Red grass or something.

The planet/starbase hybrid Starkiller base more than makes up for some of the homogeneous planet biomes and is up there with Lucas' best ideas.

Also Takodana looks pretty sweet from orbit.

 

How would they do red grass? That's actually a cool idea.

 

You almost had me agreeing to disagree, but then you had to go and throw in a ridiculously hyperbolic and unnecessary rejoinder like "Star Wars is back for the first time since the 80s", thus killing my ability to actually take you seriously.

 

Thanks!

Well, there goes the rest of my afternoon. I'm about to find out.

Red grass/Blue sky would have been a perfect fit for TFA's colour scheme.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

Spray paint the ground maybe

 

That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. The technology in 1977 made it impossible to showcase the things that George was able to showcase in Episodes 1,2,and 3 when the technology became available, and was able to have Star Wars suit his original vision, visually.

See my post above. It had to be this way, because the technology wasn't available to show Coruscant or an underwater city. Still Cloud City was a hundred times more unusual than anything in TFA.

WHY???? All we see are some trees and a lake. And one castle, that is like a castle on Earth. What do you "love" about it, really? You like trees, eh? I do too, but this is a Star Wars movie, hence the visual possibilities should be explored. Otherwise, why set the series in outer space over a variety of worlds, if you're not going to explore how different all those worlds are?

Lukes planet just showed an island in an ocean. Big deal.

And George didn't keep it "safe" in the OT deliberately. The technology wasn't available for him to do the things he wanted to do at the time and was able to visually do in the prequel trilogy.

Star Wars offers so many visual possibilities. And endless amount actually. We need to explore them, not just show more "Earths."

 

I'll tell you what was noticeably absent....Lucas's horrible dialogue, script, excessive harping regarding trade routes, and awkward character developments.

Be thankful Lucas wasn't involved in this movie. He lost whatever magic he had a LONG time ago. The last 6 or 7 movies he's been involved in have all been downright HORRIBLE.

JJ did a great job...this movie isn't perfect (no movie is) but it definitely recaptures the spirit of the OT and gets this new ST going in the right direction.

 

http://travel.allwomenstalk.com/of-the-most-incredible-other-worldly-landscapes-on-earth
Red (reed) grass, on earth.
Earth is way more diverse than we think. If anything the single biome planets are boring because they're so unimaginative.
Desert? Let's make a planet out of it!
Jungle? Let's make a planet out of it!
Forrest? Let's make a planet out of it!
Snow and ice? Let's make a planet out of it!

 

And the film has HEART in bucket loads! The friendships are believable, the acting is great, the humour was really good and mostly subtle...and best of all?? I cared.

 

There; We've cut through the hyperbole and gotten to what you're actually trying to say, to which we can now reply with a shrug and a diffident That's like, your opinion, man.

 

I'm so flabergasted by this topic.

I don't understand the problem. J.J. made a movie that would work just fine with GL movies.

I guess I don't know what "Visual Creativity" was missing. I though it was a beautifully shot movie and it looked like Star Wars to the very end.



I gotta back up Avnar on this. I love G.L. and the universe he created but this movie was the First star wars movie since jedi that I was actively caring about the characters. Which Is why I think these characters are better than a lot of the others we have had in the past.

 

After those God awful abominations known as the prequels...it needed MORE than a reinvigoration...it needed to be outright cleansed.