Saga Point of view - George Lucas was right not to listen to the embittered fans

I’m not saying that every film has to use the exact same techniques. I’m simply saying that a film has to use techniques. Both A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and GOODFELLAS have their own distinctive visual styles. Both Kubrick and Scorsese do interesting, creative things with the camera. Lucas does absolutely nothing interesting or creative with his camera. He just shoots it like a sitcom and then puts his faith in the damn computer to make the background look interesting later. But if you remove the damn green screen, here’s basically what the prequels look like:



It’s the exact same blocking, exact same lighting, exact same camera angles. Right down to the goddamn couch! I mean, compare it to this scene where Obi-Wan Kenobi tells Natalie Portman that her husband has turned to the dark side:



Let’s look at this visually dynamic scene where Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker say goodbye to each other, the last time they’re ever on good terms with each other:



The cinematography is so damn boring! Yeah, a chase scene that consists of 99.9% CGI can be visually interesting because that’s entirely created on a computer. But that’s not camerawork; that’s animation. When it comes to actually using a real camera, the results are just horrendously dull. Again, look at how numerous directors use their cameras. Look at the work of directors like F.W. Murnau, Orson Welles, Akira Kurosawa, Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, David Lean, Stanley Kubrick, Ingmar Bergman, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Terry Gilliam, John Carpenter, and David Lynch. Then compare them to George Lucas. Lucas has no interesting trademark directorial style. He has no personal flourishes or visual quirks…unless you count pure laziness as a quirky trademark style. Hell, I’d even point to Peter Jackson’s work on THE LORD OF THE RINGS as an example of a film trilogy that came out around the same time, featured extensive CGI, but still retained its own visual style and directorial flair.

 

Oh Christhell!

Okay, just comparing the thumbnails, Married has flat lighting, and looks like an ordinary house.
SW's got those light/shadow contrasts, and has lush, saturated colors.

One's got a casual ton, the other soothing.

Al is slobbing on a, I guess, "suburban" couch, though he's kind of more white trash - the ones in SW sit straight-up on aristocrat couches, because they're high society.

White trash walking around the trailer park =/= nobles strolling around gardens.



Then, in the above scene, there's an already "lush" looking set, and digital city background - in Married there's a wall or something.
The wall isn't what makes it look "flat" or "ordinary", and the unreplaced bluegreen wouldn't've either.

This has nothing to do with "making the background interesting", the scene doesn't rely on the background, the background is an extension of the indoor aesthetic.
However, the vast background reflects "the narrative", because they're having a personal, secluded storyline against the backdrop of huge galactic events, so of course they're talking in a room with a giant cityscape in the background.

Al Bundy isn't positioned in the context of huge political events, even if that were the subject matter it wouldn't have been the tone they'd go with, in a sitcom, about a "white trash" family - they go protest on the street while making dumb jokes then run from the police, that's what those guys do.
They're not putting him in front of giant epic backgrounds because they don't wanna "make it interesting", or beacuse "it's already interesting enough" - it just wouldn't fit, or match, anything, and isn't called for.





Let's not be tone-deaf, c'mahn.

 

Marcy: Hey Al, Peg said you turned to the darkside?

Al Bundy: Marcy, I'm too lazy to turn to the darkside as when I come home I just want to watch TV and have a beer!

 

Um, "sequel"? It was the next movie to be released, and had similarities - incl. stoic strolling, btw.

So IRL sequel I suppose...

And structurally the trench run.

There's lots of ANH parallels as well.

More like ROTJ introduced epic choir music to swordfights at the very end, and DotD ran with it - the sequence itself resembles ESB a lot more, though.

Well gungans=ewoks is obvious.

That's reaching - they namedrop him in ROTJ, but other than that it's not an introduction.

The most Anakin on Tattoine resembles from OT is Luke's origin, obviously very different though.

 

2K-D2
I don't want to derail the thread too much so I'll say this: you're right that a movie having certain reused or further-developed elements doesn't mean it's necessarily supposed to be a sequel. My overall reasoning for why TPM should be watched after ROTJ has more to do with my argument that the release order for the films is the way to go. Here's a link to more of my thoughts on that:
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/viewing-order-post-tfa.50039134/page-4#post-53646547

 

Kuro I think you mistake my meaning. I clearly did not say take another dialogue scene and compare to something else. 2K-D2 is right about the scene obviously being different from the sitcom. A regular dialogue scene can use a simple set of shots to tell the story, this isn't a showcasing scene. George's shot composition for the conversation is simple, straightforward, doesn't get in the way of the story, and is flawlessly done for what it needed to accomplish.

What you are doing is showing that you won't even try to do that. You aren't even considering the possibility of the prequels having impressive movie moments. But I truly think if you hang up your dislike of the movies and try to find some scenes, you really will.

The prequels have some really great stuff in them. You just have to find them, they are abundant! The scenes you are using are well-done, but it just seems like you are trying to make them look bad by choosing dialogue scenes rather than any of the shots from the Geonosian arena, or the shots from Anakin and Padme's lake-side get-away, or from the sequences of Order 66, or the pod-racing scenes, or the Otoh Gunga scenes.

I really do believe if you look for it, you'll find that the prequels have lots of impressive aspects to them. I don't mean to offend here, but it seems like you are blinded by your hate for them, you won't even try.

 

Obviously, I’m not saying that the characters or story are even remotely similar. I honestly can’t imagine Obi-Wan Kenobi acting like Al Bundy. I was simply comparing the cinematography…and the cinematography of the STAR WARS prequels is far closer to MARRIED WITH CHILDREN than it is to CITIZEN KANE. Even you have to admit that.

If I went into that MARRIED WITH CHILDREN clip and digitally manipulated it to replace the set with, say, a massive region of randomly moving, closely packed, enormous giant space rocks, how would it be any different from the damn prequels? Yeah, sure, Lucas used more advanced, high-powered video cameras than MARRIED WITH CHILDREN ever did (which would explain the “lusher” look), but aside from the fact that Lucas used a two-camera setup and MARRIED WITH CHILDREN used a three-camera setup, is there any real difference in the actual shooting style?

Please, name me a scene shot with an actual camera, because I already concede that the prequels have some great animation. Again, even when they’re not in front of the damn green screen, it still looks awfully boring. Look at the scene in ATTACK OF THE CLONES where Anakin’s uncle/stepdad/whatever is telling him about his mom has been abducted. The way that scene is shot could easily be some family dinner scene from ALL IN THE FAMILY.

And that’s why the prequels fail in terms of cinematography. CITIZEN KANE still looks interesting during the character scenes. All of Kubrick’s films still look interesting during the character scenes. Scorsese’s films still look interesting during character scenes. A scene like this, from TAXI DRIVER, has far more interesting camerawork than any scene from the prequels:



Again, I’m not saying that the prequels had to use the exact same techniques that TAXI DRIVER uses. I’m just saying that Lucas should’ve had something resembling a visual style. Inventive, creative, dynamic camerawork might’ve made the movies less boring.

 

@Kuro, the embittered fan.​

​

See that cloud right in the middle of the frame?​

​

I don't think you even know what "cinematography" means, to be honest. It's the art of making motion pictures. Thousands of people spent three years meticulously painting this movie with the most avant-garde techniques imaginable and, on the whole, over a third of a billion dollars. The amount of movement-writing is so ridiculously beyond what you realize that it's absurd. Why else would every Hollywood blockbuster since the PT copy Lucas' compositional style?​

 

Ah, alright then, semantics problem - those are actually pretty much my views as well, if someone writes consecutive episodes according to their "thought process", without going back and making sure everything adds up, it's really best to read or watch it in that same order:

This concerns both the "features" (organizing when what is introduced, climaxes etc.), and the "flaws" (adding something to the continuity and not checking for problems) - a "twist" at the end can make sense at the time, to the author and viewer, but then you rewatch it and all the things you naturally forgot are gonna start causing problems.


I watched 1-6 a couple times - you get to 4, at first things seem to be exactly right, Obiwan appears out of the desert the same way he went, but then he starts recounting the past and I'm like "wait a minute".
After a few minutes, you start realizing that this simply isn't the continuation of Ep3, and give up on trying to see it that way.

It's also amusing how a lot of the things one sees in EpI, would've been (loads more?) jarring without Ep6 to "bridge" it - stoic zen monks strolling around hallways, epic choir music in swordfights, pathetic lifeforms, etc.

"Sad Vader" comes off believable in 3 because that's what he was the last time - if you go from 3 to 4, you won't really recognize this menacing, authoritative thug barking orders at admirals.

Etc. etc., list goes on





Alright, I've actually changed my mind about the whole Jango thing - or, rather, remembered a conclusion I'd reached some while ago, not sure.

So... Jango being in on the conspiracy and luring Obiwan, is actually NOT the most sensible way of looking at the plot - or, not the only way to make sense of it, or remove gigantic contrivances.

Sure, if you take Palpatine's "everything went exactly as planned", you kind of assume that "everything that happened had been planned" - and maybe that's the way to look at the movie, ultimately, to just abandon all reason and skepticism, and accept that however implausible, the Illuminati planed your every random move.

In that case, Jango may as well not have been in on anything and just been another pawn whose every step was accounted for by The Eye - or, he may have been, and while the logical concerns decrease immensely (what I meant by "most sensible", things still don't quite add up).



Thing is... all he needed, was for someone to find out about the clone army.
That's it.

Separatists could've started their threats and invasions, so the republic wouldn't get to do their preemptive strike / rescue, but they'd still respond with the clones.

So everything after Kamino wasn't required.
If Dooku really wanted to convert Obiwan, there would've been other opportunities.


So if you accept the schlocky city chase and how the dart appeared, the only problem left is that it's got an address printed on it - and why Jango would use Kamino darts.
Other than that, pretty much adds up



This, I think, is kind of a reasonable middleground between "HE PLANNED EVEREY MOVE" and "he created tensions, a secret arms race, and started throwing things at the wall, whichever stuck, as long as someone found out about the clones" - Kamino was planned, and the rest kind of optional.

Doesn't even he didn't have any alternate plans, though.


So that's the way to "make sense" of "the plot" - from a critical perspective, the movie doesn't really convey whether everything was planned, or it was all throwing darts at the board, or something inbetween, or one of the many contingency plans, or whatnot: instead, it kind of sleepwalks through the plot, and discourages you from questioning anything.

So it feels a bit weird, in that sense.

Well, it's one thing to "guess" what Jango will do, and much better to at least control him, "guessing" what the spy trying to catch up is going to do.

Less variables, more direct control.


Note: this discussion is no longer about whether "Jango was in on it" is the most sensible interpretation - merely the most sensible if you assume Obiwan's entirey journey had been planned, or foreseen, and more sensible than "Jango was a pawn".

That's on the macro level at least.
If you just look at the Kamino scene, Jango not being in on it makes more sense.

And I'm saying it makes more sense if the guy who hits the cop with the football, was an accomplice

Thinking about possibilities comes in degrees - with Jango removed as a variable, the only possibilities that are left are "what if he hits Obiwan with a shrapnel and he gets gangrene".

As I said, mind the genre - "throw bombs at super wizard and expect him to survive" is acceptable level of planning, in this context.

Plus - I said "most" sensible. So Sidious would have less contingencies to worry about, as opposed to more

Expecting Ob1 to suspect him, and then try to apprehend him as he was leaving with the ship, wouldn't have required any random guesswork.

The guy he killed was some rookie hothead, but yea, he also killed the bison thing so I can see the testosterone levels rising.

Also consistent with the other reading, though. To a certain degree.
If he's the guy who's mastered killing Jedi with his material skills, respected by Dooku for that achievement (as that moment conveys), and was supposed to lure Ob1, he held back when "trying to kill him", and could've thought he'd get Windu if he took his kids gloves off.

You're forgetting that Dooku and Sidious WANTED A WAR, so of course they wanted them to find out about the clones... when the time came.

The bolded option is kind of the most sensible/central one.

Ah, that's another issue!

Well, just hiding the planet could've been sold as "Sifo Dyas" having been paranoid or distrustful, for whatever reasons he "did that".

But, having Jango at the same place, that makes things suspicious - why have him live there?
And then let him fly back to Geonosis?

This is actually a hole, because the Jedi have all the reasons to be suspicious of the clones, but the suspicions disappear once Reel6 starts - so it's kinda even pointless to think about whether the conspirators wanted to prevent any suspicions.

Maybe the need for them was supposed to outweigh suspicions? It kinda did.... except by making those suspicions just disappear

Not fishy, but dinosaury

Well, if his plan was to defeat Obiwan but in such a way that would let him survive (due to his superskills), cutting him off into the water wouldn't have seemed like failing his mission - obviously, the original plan, if there was any at all, would've involved some other finisher.

It's also possible that he HAD to cut him off, but it worked out for him that he survived in the end.

Point is, if you're already basing the theory of Jango luring him to Geonosis based on something else, this stuff isn't terribly contradictory - though it is somewhat.

It's plausible if you assume he's a prodigy at killing Jedi, and is in the position to put on a show and hold back - something that's implied by [moment I've already described].

The final details, like zooming in on the fight and see where he held back, doesn't matter here.

Well, it would've mattered, if my premise was that this is an airtight theory... as opposed to "moar sensible" than total unpredictable chaos


What events am I bending btw?

Is there any reason to assume this in the first place? Some moment that conveyed Windu might have that mindset? Any motivation to make up the theory to smoothen up the plot?

Oh wait no

Incomparable, due to ^^

Just using it by chance makes no sense - why would he leave a home address, and why would he use Kamino technology when he had his own?

If he did it by design, that makes sense - however, it would've made Obiwan suspect he lured him, even before leaving Kamino.

So the dart is the weak spot in either case.

Eeeeexcept that's not Jango's plans, it's Dooku's and Sidious', who want to start the war

So... it's their plan. What makes more sense, if Jango is a complete variable, who they'll have to predict will be on Kamino, then flee, then flee to Geonosis?
Or, that Jango did this intentionally, in accordance to the masterplan, leaving Obiwan as the only (fairly predictable) variable?

Why would Dexter be the only one who could identify?

There's probably lots of those guys in the underground, and they could've expected the JEdi to have their network /contacts/ other resources.

Having Zam know her client's location, could've appeared too easy and suspicious - but maybe not too suspicious for a schlock spy plot like this.
Point this, that'd be a reason to go with the dart thing isntead

And much more suspicious.

Well, whoever planted this, might've wanted control oevr when to reveal the information - and told them not to contact the republic?
They didn't look like they were going to.

Ah! I actually just came to that conclusion before I just read this
^^ ^^ ^^

A hole in your theory is why Jango would keep Boba in the dark about this. Why?
He has no reason to lie to his son about this.
And saying "He could have" doesn't cut it if you want to argue that this explanation makes more sense than all the others. Well apart for the real explanation, scripts demands.[/QUOTE]

Well it's sensitive information innit

Eh. *shrug*

 

Oh I think he can hate the movies all he wants

Just respect the director and his work. But it seems that's not viable...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Also...Jango was operating under the assumption that the saber-dart was not traceable by the droids in the Jedi analysis archives. It's possible that the Jedi were never supposed to find or lead the clones, but if they did, the Sith always had the order sixty-six contingency plan. Actually, I'm beginning to think the whole plan was to create an Army for the Republic that Palpatine could just lead himself against the Jedi in a surprise attack without the Jedi ever having become generals.

 

The complaints of some here towards the PT are so over the top... I mean, we have now arrived to compare the cinematography in a simple and cheap TV series as Sitcom with a Star Wars movie and saying that the former is better than the latter? Seriously? Is this really some kind of intelligent or constructive discussion?

 

SW Saga Fan, I never said that MARRIED WITH CHILDREN had better cinematography. I said it had equal cinematography.

 

I don't think you know what "equal" means, to be honest. They are not identical. In fact, none of their pixels are the same.

 

However, it seems that for a lot of average people that scene from a Sitcom seems a lot more entertaining and funny than the scenes in the PT. Keyword is: "it has to be fun and entertaining" since I haven't yet heard any complaints, or the same amount of vigorous complaints towards a Sitcom as the ones I've heard for more than 15 years towards the PT.

I'm sorry, but I really have found your comparison between a Sitcom and the PT here to be unexpected and not serious at all...

 

Kuro's just repeating RLM reviews, which were a sloppy mess - I'll explain later.

Oh, wait, I'll explain now!



PS:
hey, your sig links to this very thread

 

I haven't watched the full RLM reviews and haven't watched them for a long time (since I've found them to be really crass), but now that you mention it, I now remember that there was a reference to a Sitcom in it. Indeed I've found this comparison to be just hilarious and kept wondering why many people take those reviews seriously and kept praising them as some sort of "intellectual product"...

 

Because when someone don't like something, how can they resist anything that tries to eviscerate it?

 

I must admit, the RLM videos are very funny. Dark humor yes, bashing of course, but they nail the jokes.

Just look at them like parody videos of the cliche fanboi's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't think so. I rather think that some people have become so embittered and cynical towards life and society and grew up to only pick what they don't like, and then throw everything else on the window, good and extraordinary stuff, and just keep complaining about what they don't like for years and years and years...

Sadly, that's what society has become today:

 

Ah quit being melodramatic lol, it's just a negative attitude towards 3 movies.

I know for a fact that a lot here hate ST'09, partially because of Simon Pegg, and they're into it... so yea.


Why RLM are taken seriously? Don't know, maybe for the same reason they think 1-3 are intricate masterpieces? *shrug*

 

I think it's also kind of a defense mechanism too. Notice how we have posters that spend more time in the section they dislike more than the content they care about. It's much more fun to attack the films you like the least because you can only praise and worship the films you like best for so long. Maybe when you realize the OT had corny moments, they got to find a way to keep their favorite trilogy elevated, so it becomes excuses.

"Well yeah, Tarkin didn't get much character development, but HE WAS MORE MENACING THAN MAUL!!"

"Well Boba Fett didn't do anything, BUT HE WAS COOLER THAN JANGO!"

If that was a new theory directly related to SW fans attacking other SW fans, this would be my guess. *shrugs*

 

Just saying, but it is much more than a simple negative attitude towards three movies when people viciously attack and try to destroy the credibilty of a film director and attack others who only express something positive towards these movies...

 

It's just natural ideological behavior.

What I said was that it's limited to this specific area, and not "life in general", so the whole "what of our generation and future" rant was a bit melo.

 

Because such cinematography is acceptable for a sitcom. It’s not acceptable for a major motion picture, especially one that’s supposedly from a “visual filmmaker”.