George Lucas really is determined to CGI over his own accidental brilliance

Maybe, though usually meeting kids is an uplifting experience for everyone involved rather than a depressing one. I would think turning down would be harder emotionally than saying yes.

I volunteer with them, and one of my kids is one he turned down. The kid has a brain tumor (one with a good prognosis) and was telling me about his eight lightsabres and he watched Clone Wars. He's been trying to decide on a new wish for the past six weeks or so, but he can't decide since what he really wanted to do is meet Lucas.

 

Like I said earlier on the thread, I think that we probably overrated the original trilogy as movies through the fog of nostalgia.

 

Well, look at it this way: with Ep. 1, Lucas guaranteed the reviews for the next two episodes had nowhere to go but up.

Taken on its own, Ep. 2 would have been slagged as a huge disappointment, but the main thing most reviews mentioned at the time was it was a "huge improvement over Ep. 1," which of course it was.

I actually thought ROTS was pretty good on its own merits, probably as good or better than "Jedi," and somewhere in the neighborhood of the original "Star Wars" (which has lost a bit of its luster over 35 years, for me).

 

Yeah, the original has not held up so well, but the effects at the time were way beyond what was out there. It was a great movie. I'd agree on ROTS too. Pretty good movie. It's the third-best of the bunch to me.
I actually think the CGI hurt the franchise a little, because they took it too far, and to me the effects in the original trilogy were more realistic, even though the technology was primitive.

 

My favorite bit from the RedLetterMedia stuff (and this conversation made me watch them all again) is when he tries to make people describe the characters of Ep. 1 without resorting to what they look like or what they do, then does the same experiment with characters from A New Hope. Of course the Ep. 1 characters are horribly flat and lack any sort of personality or any traits that you aren't explicitly told about.

The other overarching point he makes about the prequels is that you never know what anything is happening. Outside of Palpatine, you never know why anyone is fighting or traveling to here or there or blockading or speaking or meeting. They never explain anything, and the characters are so cardboard their motives are impossible to decipher.

 

Give me well-done models over CGI any day. That's part of the reason I like the original trilogy so much.

 

Not bad, but you really have to have something of the relationship between Anakin and Padme. The problem was the execution. Unfortunately, I don't think Lucas is capable of better.

 

I don't exactly agree with you. Another of the great points from those reviews is that the expense and difficulty of special effects for the originals kept Lucas from cluttering them up, thus fucking them up. I don't think CGI is worse than models, but would agree no director seems to be able to contain himself when blessed with the power of CGI, and it's that aspect that makes CGI movies shittier.

 

How long after Lucas dies do we have to wait until the rights run out, this all becomes public and someone can re-do this shit?

Or can that ever happen?

 

My guess is he set it up legally to make sure that can't happen.

 

Shotgunning a thought or two:

Han shot first, Greedo shot first . . . I don't care. Sure, it was an unnecessary change, and Lucas' "explanations" are mealy-mouthed to the extreme. Main problem with the 1997 version was how Han's head detached itself from his body to avoid Greedo's shot.

Always thought the whole "Boring CNN crawl plotline" for the start of Episode I was to establish that to these people, in their society, this was a big deal. They had a blockade of a peaceful planet and had to have a bunch of politicians talk about whether this was a bad thing. That's kind of what the United Nations does whenever a world leader gets belligerent, waves his member around and makes threats against other nations.

In the end, it was pretty clear that the Emperor took over because he was smarter than everyone else, largely because the arrogant Jedi couldn't fathom the Sith returning without them knowing, the politicians were mostly weak and easily pliable, and the Republic itself was complacent. I understand consternation regarding the execution of this (and I know I would have done some things differently, but I'm not financing my own movies), but it's a more compelling idea than "Dude raises an army, marches over everything and blows shit up, and gets installed as Emperor! See you in the original film!"

Jar Jar always came off as an experiment. When they shot the thing in 1997, the technology to create him was in its infancy. Had it not worked, they could have cut his unimportant butt from the whole thing. Still amazed no one ever says "he looked fake!"

Episode II was horrific. The wife notes that a kid raised by warrior priests and a woman who has been a politician since she was six years old (or so) likely never had a chance to learn how to talk to the opposite sex in a romantic way. Still, an excruciating film that, while it has moments, leaves you thinking they're a movie behind.

I do agree with Whitman: the old movies were not as special as memories would have us believe. The first two were very good, and the situation the heroes are left in at the end of Empire is a gutsy thing for a film series to do. The acting ranges from so-so to pretty good, the scripts work only because the actors deliver them with complete sincerity.

The characters, as Lucas himself said, were all simple, almost archetypes. Back then, it was the young dreamer, the brash veteran and the fiery female leader. In the first prequel, it was the young man who wanted to follow the rules, the older guy who scoffed at same, and the fiery female leader. Then it became the veteran who still wanted to follow the rules, and the young guy who scoffed at same, and the fiery female leader.

(Wow! I did that without talking about what they do or what they look like! I'm just so boss!)

The anti-CGI sentiments for these movies are interesting. How DARE they create an imaginary world in which the laws of physics are broken by the most basic weapon, without using models!!!!!

Now, the CGI in the last Indiana Jones film? No thanks. Those are based in a realistic world with fantasy elements. Don't have plants hit Shia in the privates, thanks.

Also love how Spielberg tries to blame Lucas for Indy 4. He also tries to blame him for how "dark!!!!" Temple of Doom was. While Indy 4 was a disaster and Temple of Doom is probably the weirdest of the films (and wow, is Short Round a massive question in a flick that takes place a year before the first one) this doesn't exactly ring true. Yes, Steven freaking Spielberg is such a wilting flower on the sets of films he directs.

They keep talking about an Indiana Jones 5. If it takes an act of God to stop this film, then, by all means.

Or, you know, someone else can come up with their own movie.

 

Except the characters in 1-2-3 consistently break from those molds, and not in ways that enrich or develop them, but in ways that scramble them. And I think that's the first time I've seen "fiery" used to describe Padme in Episode 1. I remember her doing a lot of sitting while talking in a monotone voice and wearing weird makeup and clothing.

If you found the characters in 1-2-3 to be as deep and interesting as those in 4-5-6, well, congrats. That's quite an accomplishment.