~ESSAY CONTEST WINNER: "TWO AUDIENCES, TWO SPIRITS"~

First off, digital video was around long before 2002, and other features (usually low-budget ones) were shot on it long before AOTC.

AOTC wasn't shot on DV as an artistic move, nor was it done for the fan's benefit....it was 100% a cost/time saving move. It was I think a unanimous consensus that AOTC looked blurrier and darker than movies shot on film, though just slightly so. But the point is that shooting on DV does NOT make the movie better for the audiences. For us, in fact, AOTC suffered and looked worse (not counting DVD). But DV did what it was supposed to do in that it made the moviemaking experience a LOT easier for Lucas and especially the editors and special effects crew.

Also, if you're looking to suck-up to somebody for revolutionizing modern filmmaking, I'd look to James Cameron for technical innovations and Oliver Stone for artistic and editorial innovations. (Plus, of course, there are thousands of unseen craftsmen and workers creating stuff all the time).

 

Also, if you're looking to suck-up to somebody for revolutionizing modern filmmaking, I'd look to James Cameron for technical innovations

Just a little clarification Cameron has stated in several press interviews that his next project: "Battle Angel Alita" will be shot on HD-DV. He is even considering shooting it on HD-DV for IMAX 3D using the same DV system he shot "Ghosts of the Abyss" with.

I fully 100% agree on you that the degraded look of HD-DV was a step-back compared to the 35mm of TPM.

But without people like Lucas using High-Definition-Digital-Video the medium would still be in the realm of "Blair Witch".

You may not be aware of this but Lucas, Sony and the Episode II HD-DV cameras were featured on the cover of just about every major industry and cinematography magazine on the planet. The move to shoot Episode II on digital video was talked about and debated across the world and ultimately led many other big-budget DV features to be greenlit (e.g. Vincent Ward's "River Queen", Rodriguez's "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" and "Sin City", "Sky Captain", Michael Mann's "Collateral") AND convinced Cameron to ask IMAX and Sony to let him test out their IMAX-DV system and also think seriously about shooting his next feature on DV format.

I'm not a fan of DV's visual look and I hope like hell that the medium improves drastically over the next few years or that I get more experience working on celluloid, but in the end before the time I die (if I get to die of old age) Digital Video will have its place in modern cinema and it'll be George Lucas who'll be remembered for making it "credible".

 

" Also, if you're looking to suck-up to somebody for revolutionizing modern filmmaking, I'd look to James Cameron for technical innovations and Oliver Stone for artistic and editorial innovations. (Plus, of course, there are thousands of unseen craftsmen and workers creating stuff all the time). "

No. Cameron, VERY begrudgingly, admits that Lucas laid all the pavement for the innovations in f/x, editing, and editing f/x of the last 30 years. Stone was a screenwriter before he was a director, not an editor like Lucas and Cameron.

" AOTC wasn't shot on DV as an artistic move, nor was it done for the fan's benefit....it was 100% a cost/time saving move. It was I think a unanimous consensus that AOTC looked blurrier and darker than movies shot on film, though just slightly so. "

Sorry, this all just your opinion.

 

Lucas founded ILM, it would be impossible for Cameron to do anything without ILM. It is Industrial Light and Magic which is the pioneer, and that is all Lucas. I'm not "sucking up" to anyone, it is just opinion/fact.

When I saw Attack of the Clones it was very clear and was in no way fuzzy. Your comments in to this aspect are opinion.

-Seldon

 

Darth Seldon:

Please stop stalking me and badgering me with your stupid and inaccurate critiques. I have no interest in you, and I don't harass you. Please just leave me and my posts alone.

Thanks.

-David Brennan

 

Everybody cool it. Remember the basis of good discussion, attack the argument, never the user.

Thanks.

 

Enjoyed the article. Can't agree with all of your conclusions (box office speaking to relative quality of films in particular; I agree that within the SW franchise, comparing data like that is instructive, but it nearly all other cases it's largely worthless), but I liked the piece for the most part. I've tried to follow the arguments here, but they're a bit vitriolic from some quarters to take in all at one sitting, and you yourself do tend to pound your "university debate club rogue" style into the ground a bit too often.

>>>It was I think a unanimous consensus that AOTC looked blurrier and darker than movies shot on film<<<

I never heard this one. It was definitely blurred, but my memory was that it was actually a lot brighter, unnaturally so. I recall everything looking like lucite. It's every OTHER film these days that I find desaturated and overly dark, and not always due to under projection.

>>>if you're looking to suck-up to somebody for revolutionizing modern filmmaking, I'd look to James Cameron for technical innovations<<<

Ugh.

>>> and Oliver Stone for artistic and editorial innovations.<<<

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

 

>>> and Oliver Stone for artistic and editorial innovations.<<<

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Well, that all depends on if you count U-Turn or The Hand ...

 

"I mean, I will never forget leaving the theater of AOTC and having the entire men's room - absolute strangers - collectively mock Star Wars, like they couldn't believe how bad the past two hours of their life was."

Hmm... that's funny. I remember when I saw AOTC opening day, the audience gave it a standing ovation.

Plus the fact that they went insane during the Yoda/Dooku Dual. The 40 year old guy with the ESB T-shirt in front of me screaming for the battle must have been one of these "fanboys" you speak of.

edit: Let's start discussing the essay (however biased it may be) again, instead of turning this into a PT-OT war.

 

Please stop stalking me and badgering me with your stupid and inaccurate critiques. I have no interest in you, and I don't harass you. Please just leave me and my posts alone.

If you can't stand the heat....

Oh and calling someone's opinions 'stupid' isn't going win you any brownie points either.

Anyways is there anything LEFT of this essay to comment on?

 

I am in both audiences, so I am fine with the fact that all these movies have differing feels. It's intnetional, and I think it serves the story well.

 

Why would you want to make the same movie twice? You don't. If GL had that mindset, we probably never would have gotten past ESB because it would have been a rehash of ANH and not very good.

Likewise, the PT shouldn't be a rehash of the OT. The story of ANH, for instance, is extremely simple- good guys fighting bad guys who are in charge. The PT is much more complex and shows a more complex period of time. What's wrong with that?

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

It's back?

Goodness gracious.

 

Oops I hadn't realized that this thread had been dead for 4 months when I posted.



sorry people