# Will anyone stand up to George Lucas?



## Kai Lord (Jan 5, 2004)

Many people, inside and outside the film industry (myself included), believe that one of the primary reasons the SW prequels have been *ahem* "lacking" is due to the fact that no one has had the testicular fortitude to stand up to Lucas and tell him which of his ideas just plain suck, as Gary Kurtz, Lawrence Kasdan, Harrison Ford, etc. used to do with the original trilogy (particularly the first two films.)

When the prequel trilogy began every actor and crew member was so in awe of George and the saga that nobody questioned his ideas and techniques.

But now SW is just so...mediocre.  The story has fallen so, so far below the special effects, and even those were overshadowed by The Matrix in 1999 and The Two Towers in 2002.

The Lord of the Rings has eclipsed even the original SW trilogy in quality and current mainstream appeal, yet Peter Jackson still allowed the input of his crew to impact his vision.  The Two Towers EE DVD reveals that as much as he loved the character of Treebeard, he took to heart the opinion of his editor that including scenes of the ent talking the hobbits' ears off and putting them to sleep might do the same to the audience, so those scenes were trimmed from the theatrical release (which PJ has gone on record as saying are the true "director's cuts" of the films, not the EE's.)

The original Star Wars was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, just like all the LOTR films.  And the second was even _better_.  Star Wars used to be the outer space high fantasy of everyone's dreams; now its a saga of 10 year old brats, cringe inducing gungans, and Degrassi Junior High level romance set against PS2-style special effects.  Entertaining, but moderately and forgettably so.

Will the cast and crew of Star Wars become disenchanted enough to challenge George and push him to make the last film better or will Episode III be more of the same?  What do you think?  Can SW be _great_ again?


----------



## Kesh (Jan 5, 2004)

No.


----------



## Capellan (Jan 5, 2004)

Personally, I think you just insulted the writers of Degrassi Junior High


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 5, 2004)

I think that after Ep 3, Lucas might relinquish control since he'll have 'completed' what he set out to do. Then, maybe, we could see a third-party Star Wars film (something from the time of the Republic would be awesome). Otherwise, we'll have to wait until he chooses a 'sucessor' or dies, one.


----------



## KenM (Jan 5, 2004)

Well, since Ep3 is now in post prodution, its a little too late for people to tell GL what sucks about the movie. IMO GL is a control freak, its his money, his company doing all the work, making all the cash, so i don't think he would care what people say.


----------



## Alcareru (Jan 5, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Well, since Ep3 is now in post prodution, its a little too late for people to tell GL what sucks about the movie. IMO GL is a control freak, its his money, his company doing all the work, making all the cash, so i don't think he would care what people say.




Yep Its too late. GL said he wasnt going to follow his original idea of doing 3 trilogies becasue he wanted to spend time with his family, etc. Instead what he will do is tinker ad infinitum with the 6 movies he does do. I am sure that, for instance, a digital Yoda will be inserted into the classic trilogy, forever obliterating Frank Oz and Co. performance. That is what we have to look forward too I think.


----------



## danzig138 (Jan 5, 2004)

I figure ultimately, they are his movies, so he can do whatever the heck he wants with him, and I doubt at this point that anyone will tell him anything sucks. Personally, after accounting for the fact that I'm not 4 anymore, I loved the prequels.   I have more issues with the reworkings of the originals than with the prequels.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 5, 2004)

I don't like Lucas' directing style, which is simply subjective.  I have small issues with a few of the prequels which are similar to my minor gripes about *Return of the Jedi*.  I also have yet to see the last part of this huge saga; one that is bigger than the current fave, Lord of the Rings - a movie that had the best writer in history to base a story off of.  When Peter Jackson writes, directs and produces his own original 6-part movie trilogy then I will start to compare the two film series.

So, should anyone be telling Lucas anything?  Sure!  Some of his earlier punch and magic will be forever lost.  Any good creator should consider the advice of others who are involved with a huge project.  And yup, he takes all the credit and blame for everything Star Wars film related.  But we have no idea what goes on behind closed doors.  Yes, he is the man with the plan and a well-known egotist.  Only the people involved know the amount of debate and lobbying that goes on in the creation of Star Wars.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Will the cast and crew of Star Wars become disenchanted enough to challenge George and push him to make the last film better or will Episode III be more of the same? What do you think? Can SW be _great_ again?



It never stopped being great.  The newer films have expanded on what came before.  There are a few stylistic things that I would have changed but they are not my movies.  I look forward to Episode 3 will high hopes.  If it is as good as Episode II, I will be happy.  However, I believe it will be even better.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 5, 2004)

John pretty much summed up what I was going to say.  Frankly, if Episode III is as good as Episode I and Episode II, I'll be content.


----------



## DarkSoldier (Jan 5, 2004)

After Ep3, I hope George will relinquish control so that the stories of the Old Republic can be filmed; I'd love to see a trilogy about the Great Hyperspace War or the Great Sith War.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 5, 2004)

If you'll allow me to dip into the dregs of Internet culture. . . 

"The prequels suck, dudes.  If South Park can with a straight face tell you you're a talentless hack who should be stopped from making movies for the sake of cinema, then you probably let someone else direct for a change."


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 5, 2004)

Heh. I dunno.

On one hand, if he didn't devote his time and energy before the Prequel, we probably would not have the foremost special effect production company in the USA, Industrial Lights and Magic (ILM).

On the other hand, because of the above, he didn't rack up any directing experience since he did _The Empire Strikes Back_ up until _The Phantom Menace._ Even his buddy Spielberg, who used to do "Goonies" type films as well as "Indy Jones" surpassed him.

Or perhaps _Star Wars_ is just an icon of the last millenium. It was great in the late 70's and early 80's, but trying to sell new films toward today's audience would be difficult.

Maybe it's the present attitude of today's audience. I must admit, escapism is the keyword. They want films whose story swept them along and offer them happy endings. I guess that's why _Spider-Man_ did great in the Box Office, as well as _LOTR,_ and an Oscar front-runner, _Seabiscuit._ For the Prequel, we pretty much know what will happen to Anakin and the old Jedi Order, which is a sad, fateful story.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 5, 2004)

The problem, people grow up and as said you never can go home again.  A magical world is created and ah is created but later people look at it and go I don't remember it that way.  The story is Lucus' and while there are some things I don't like, it is a good yarn he is telling, the big picture is greater than its parts and I know you can't have too many cooks in the kitchen.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jan 5, 2004)

I think since Lucas is directing the films, he's certainly not going to let anyone tell him that he's doing anything wrong or that an idea sucks.  The Lucas of the late 70's - early 80's was about 500 million dollars poorer than the Lucas of today.  He doesn't have to listen to anybody.

They are Lucas' films, for better or worse.  However, I won't buy into any more stories of the man's greatness as a storyteller.  Businessman, yes.  But I laugh when I hear about how Lucas' has had this latest trilogy planned out for years and years now.


----------



## Numion (Jan 5, 2004)

I don't know if it's ever good that the artist (director, George Lucas) is also the leader of the project and owner of the company. No ones going tell him when it's crap, not the people that matter anyway. Samuel L Jackson should have a chat with George .. Shaft-style! But only thing Jackson is intrested seems to be the color of his pink lightsabre and not dying like a pussy . .

So EP3 will suck, and yes, George will eventually 'retouch' all his earlier works for the 'better'. 

I'll still see EP3 in a theater  

I'm his beeyotch ..


----------



## cybermonkey (Jan 5, 2004)

Personally, I think it's just the state of the internet. 

It has become "fashionably cool" to tell your junior high friends that you trashed George Lucas and Star Wars on the internet. The opinions of the thousands of wanna-be film critics are suppose to mean something, but all it amounts to is a huge pissing contest of who can find the biggest movie (in regards to box office take and hype) and trash it.

So, back to the original question: Can anyone talk sense into George Lucas?

Huh? If the prequels made as much money as it did, I think your question is answered.

Movies aren't to entertain us. Accept that fact. The true artist directors in Hollywoods make movies because that's what they (not you) want to see on the screen.

If George Lucas' favorite movie is Howard the Duck, that just shows the man is doing it to amuse himself. If everyone else likes, more money to him. If everyone thinks it "sucks," then everyone is entitled to an opinion. 

Besides the Star Wars prequels must be a pretty good films if everyone keeps bringing it up into different threads on different boards throughout the Internet, or use it as a basis of comparison to other films.

When was the last time a comic book movie was compared to Howard the Duck? Think about it.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jan 5, 2004)

cybermonkey said:
			
		

> Movies aren't to entertain us. Accept that fact. The true artist directors in Hollywoods make movies because that's what they (not you) want to see on the screen.




No, that's not a fact.  The movie studios want to entertain us.  In fact, they have a laundry list of sales reports, marketing reports, and customer satisfaction reports that are telling them exactly what we want to see.  And so that's what they will turn out to a very nauseating degree.  The artist directors exist because there will always be a group of people out there who want to see something (anything) outside the mainstream for the simple reason that they can't see anything like it anywhere else.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jan 5, 2004)

What is to say George has not listened to others...


----------



## kengar (Jan 5, 2004)

Personally, I saw E1:TPM, was so disgusted at the offensive caricatures, bad acting, script & direction that I never even bothered with E2 & I won't with E3. 

Curious as to whether I had simply "lost touch" with the Star Wars mystique since I was a kid, I watch Empire on video cassette not long ago (NOT the "special edition" nonsense). It was great. While I realize I can't go back the wonder of the first movie when I first saw it, I believe there is a real qualitative difference between the original films and the new stuff. I even disliked the effects in E1 because of GL's obvious over-reliance on ILM's digital playground. The movie looked like a video game and about as much thought went into the plot.

The old god is dead, there is a new god of Sci-Fi/Fantasy now, and his name is Peter Jackson


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2004)

I'll put three opinions out there, and let the rest of the watchers and contributors to the thread judge their worth:

1) No one has a "right" to make George Lucas do ANYTHING about Star Wars; it's his baby, and his franchise. He can make it as good or bad as he wants. TO assert otherwise takes something away from someone on a principle I don't like one bit. It's his rightful property, right or wrong.

Now, the good artist knows when to listen to other opinions, and take them into account, and when to draw the line on his vision, and make the final decisions. It's the mark of any good leader to make the hard calls. But if someone is truly believing that all their ideas are the best ones, they obviously delude themselves.

2) The two prequel films aren't nearly as bad as some people make them out to be. The proof is self-evident: The movies are grossing hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide, children are pretending to be Jango Fett and Jar Jar, and merchandise is selling like crazy. I've definitely seen oversold SW merchandise, mind you - but then again, I saw it with the original movies, too. It's just that the stuff became collector's items worth lots of money AFTER most everyone threw their stuff away.

Is it MY Star Wars? Not really. But I can still see them as entertaining - heck, the Jedi battles are entertaining enough on their own.

3)According to IMDB, George Lucas from 1977 to 1999 directed a total of THREE films - Star Wars, a filmography in 1991, and The Phantom Menace. He has FAR more credits as a writer and producer - an idea man. It's small wonder to me that his vision did not turn out as the mainstream expects it - two thirds of our perception of what made Star Wars dynamic is done by different people.


----------



## Storminator (Jan 5, 2004)

Ep 1 made me sad. I loved Star Wars so much, and I really wanted to like it. But it just didn't do the old flicks justice. There were a couple of stills in it that I thought we absolutely gorgeous, but that's not enough for a movie.

The weakness of the films was driven home for me on a long drive. We listened to the book-on-tape novelization of Ep 1, and it was much, much better. That's a sad commentary on a film.

PS


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 5, 2004)

I don't know how old any of you are, but my 6 and 7 year old sons can't watch the Star Wars movies, any of the 5, often enough.  Lucas once said, and I think we all need to remember this, that Ep1 was not made for adults, but for kids.

Do I have issues with both (Ep1 and 2) movies?  Yes, they both look like they were made with turning them into video games in mind.  Yes, his dialogue is brutal.  But, you know what, the dialogue was brutal in the first 3 movies too!  The acting wasn't any better either.  I find both movies fairly entertaining, not great stuff, but entertaining.  I can't imagine that most of us, in looking at them as adults, really find the Ewoks all that entertaining, or well done.  Now, that's my opinion, some of you probably disagree with me.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 5, 2004)

Well, Henry and JC said it better than I could.

Part of the problem with the Prequels, is that it IS a different story. The TONE is different...and people go to the theater still expecting the OLD story. I, for one, am GLAD we get to see a different side of the story...however, you have to take everything with it. Bad dialogue? Part of the genre AND time period. Bad acting? Same. Bad directing? Matter of opinion. Bad story? Still, opinion again. Too childish? Look at the Originals objectively.

Obviously, enough people liked it, or it wouldn't have done nearly as well as it has. I think its foolish to run around saying how much better Star Wars would be if SOMEONE ELSE did it. Because you know what? Someone else ISN'T doing it. This is Lucas' story. As an artist myself, I may not LIKE a lot of classic paintings and works, but I don't go around telling the world how much better I could do. Good or bad, ALL art has strong merits.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jan 5, 2004)

If I had to sum up the reason the new trilogy doesn't appeal to fans of the original, it'd be it's missing two key people:

Han Solo and Darth Vader.

Harrison Ford carried a lot of the original trilogy.  And Vader was an imposing villain that everyone could really get behind hating.

To me, nobody has filled those voids in the new trilogy.


----------



## Numion (Jan 5, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> 2) The two prequel films aren't nearly as bad as some people make them out to be. The proof is self-evident: The movies are grossing hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide, children are pretending to be Jango Fett and Jar Jar, and merchandise is selling like crazy.




Is it always "big earnings = it must be good"? Is 'NSync the best music then, because it's most sold? 

Earnings of a film or whatever might mean to studios that it's a good film. There's more to it, though - LotR had both; financial success and critical acclaim. It think those are better films than EPI and EPII that had only financial success.


----------



## Numion (Jan 5, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Part of the problem with the Prequels, is that it IS a different story. The TONE is different...and people go to the theater still expecting the OLD story. I, for one, am GLAD we get to see a different side of the story...however, you have to take everything with it. Bad dialogue? Part of the genre AND time period. Bad acting? Same.




I just don't buy that "It was supposed to be bad, so it really isn't!" excuses when it comes to filmmaking. Crap in your pants is still crap in your pants, even if you did it on purpose.


----------



## buzzard (Jan 5, 2004)

Since opinions are like you-know-what and they all stink I won't bother debating the (lack of IMHO of course) quality of Eps I&II. The rationalizations in their favor have been amusing. 

Though to get to the issue at hand, it's a shame nobody will try to beat some sense into Lucas' head. It's also a shame that due to this I certainly won't bother to go see Ep III in the theater. Maybe I'll rent it, or maybe I'll just wait till it hits a form of TV I don't have to pay for. I refuse to kick in any more money for what I perceive as dreck. 

I can't argue that it isn't his movie to do what he wills with. I certainly can avoid pitching any more money into that black hole of trash. 

buzzard


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> Is it always "big earnings = it must be good"? Is 'NSync the best music then, because it's most sold?




I will say this: N*Sync was not great music, but it wasn't terrible, either. From an objective standpoint, it has enough quality to be popular. Note I never said the two prequels were "best," only that they aren't this terrible cess-pit that so many detractors make them out to be: They are, in fact, entertaining - to me, to millions of people worldwide, and MOST entertaining to their target audience - kids. Does it have a ton of storyline? No, but then neither did the earlier trilogy. All we have are what secondary authors have built up over the years to give meaning to those throwaway lines from the original trilogy, and the fans were blessed with some pretty good authors to carry the torch from the late 1980's till now.

To me, Ewan MacGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, and even Sam L. Jackson don't have either the acting ability or the comfort level in their characters that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher did; of the cast, maybe MacGregor does the best job; Jackson has done some awesome roles in the past, but he just doesn't look comfortable in his role.


----------



## Wombat (Jan 5, 2004)

I still stick to my blasphemous theory that the thing that went "wrong" with Star Wars was _The Empire Strikes Back_, which elevated our hopes to an unattainable level, never to be matched again.

Yeah, I loathed both prequels.  OTOH, I know lots of kids who love them.

As a kid I liked watching Disney's _Mary Poppins_ -- can't stand it now.

Lesson to be learned?  Probably not.


----------



## Berandor (Jan 5, 2004)

I don't like the prequels; they simply don't work for me. I don't know why cheezy dialogue in the OT and, for example, LotR doesn't bother me that much; in fact, many of the OTs cheeziest lines are memorable quotes (and Gimli's 



Spoiler



"That still counts as one!"


 is as well).
In the prequels, it all falls flat. It's overdone. Joda doesn't need to jump around like a BBEG in "Jedi Knight" - it's funny, but too funny to retain respect for the little guy.
The love story in the OT isn't that well done, either. I think the difference is the prequels try to be a great, epic story, a politically intense and emotionally satisfying journey when the OT simply was a fun ride, and nothing more (but nothing less, either). It's a different way to tell a story, and to me it doesn't work. The new films try to be "serious", and neglect the pulp origin (or at least I feel that way).
That doesn't mean I don't get childlike grins on my face when lightswords battle - but I'll cringe at midichlorians as well.

And, as you all know: Greedo shot first!


----------



## buzzard (Jan 5, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> To me, Ewan MacGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, and even Sam L. Jackson don't have either the acting ability or the comfort level in their characters that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher did; of the cast, maybe MacGregor does the best job; Jackson has done some awesome roles in the past, but he just doesn't look comfortable in his role.




OK maybe I will debate the points. 

Actually McGregor, Jackson and Portman are great actors. It is a combination of insipid dialog and (what I assume must be) bad direction which is leaving them wooden. McGregor manages to come across as OK, but I suspect he manages to bull through on raw talent. 

But let's be honest here. It's all well and good to excuse the movies as "for kids", but so are the Harry Potter films, and they are worlds better than the new SW stuff. Just because it's for kids doesn't mean the acting and dialog have to be horrible. 

Though a lot of people are busting on the plots, and honestly the plots of the current ones are about the only thing (besides the eye candy) that I can stand. There are some interesting twists and turns present. I just can't put up with the pain of how it is presented. 

buzzard


----------



## The Hanged Man (Jan 5, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> I will say this: N*Sync was not great music, but it wasn't terrible, either. From an objective standpoint, it has enough quality to be popular. Note I never said the two prequels were "best," only that they aren't this terrible cess-pit that so many detractors make them out to be: They are, in fact, entertaining - to me, to millions of people worldwide, and MOST entertaining to their target audience - kids. Does it have a ton of storyline? No, but then neither did the earlier trilogy. All we have are what secondary authors have built up over the years to give meaning to those throwaway lines from the original trilogy, and the fans were blessed with some pretty good authors to carry the torch from the late 1980's till now.
> 
> To me, Ewan MacGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, and even Sam L. Jackson don't have either the acting ability or the comfort level in their characters that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher did; of the cast, maybe MacGregor does the best job; Jackson has done some awesome roles in the past, but he just doesn't look comfortable in his role.




But there's a difference between N*Sync (something that was meant to be, always was, and never will be more than, mediocre), and SW (something that was and could be great).  I agree with your general point that the prequels are by no stretch of the imagination D&D, The Movie.  On the other hand, if Godfather II had Bozo the Clown taking over for Robert Duvall, and the little people from the Wizard of Oz instead of gangsters in Las Vegas, the movie might be OK on an absolute level, but you'd still be left the feeling that it's actually crap compared to both Godfather I and what it could be.  That's my problem with the Prequels.

As for MacGregor, et al - Hayden Christensen is of course laughable, but the rest are talented, acclaimed actors easily the equal of the SW cast.  If they are uncomfortable with their roles, it's only bc of the cheesy lines, ridiculous situations, and ludicrous plots they need to keep up with.

The blame is solely with Lucas.  He may be fulfilling his artistic impulse, but it's a crappy one.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 5, 2004)

George Lucas can do whatever he wants, of course.

He's not a very good director of movies. He is a worse writer of movies. He is not in any way a storyteller.

He does have two great talents: a keen business sense that I don't think anyone else in the industry can match ("Merchandising? What's that?"), and a understanding of how technology impacts film creation, and the ability to stay on that bleeding edge of technical innovation (motion-control cameras, travelling mattes, multi-channel sound, all sorts of good stuff) -- AND show off that innovation in clear and ocassionally exciting ways.

He got lucky with _Star Wars_. It's one of those films where everything came together at the right moment in history. And then he stepped back and gave _Empire_ to a talented team and let them look after it. And since then?

It's his money -- he can spend it how he likes. And people go to see the movies, sure, but I'm not convinced that means they're good. People go to see movies for all sorts of reasons other than the fact that the movie in question is good. We go to Star Wars movies because traditionally they have showed us things no other movies would show us. I don't find that to be true anymore, but the realisation has been a long time coming. I saw the first two films of the new trilogy with a great deal of hope, and was disappointed both times. The third one, well, if the trailers are good and the critical response is good then I'll definitely see it -- otherwise frankly I may pass.

It's like what's happened to Bond films. Used to be, Bond films were the only films like Bond films. With crazy stunts and beautiful girls and exotic locations and expensive gear all over the place -- but now tons of people make films like that, and the Bond films are suffering in comparision -- a Bond film is just another action film nowadays. And a Star Wars film has become just another special effects film.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 6, 2004)

I had fun watching both prequals and I have a good idea I'll have a great time watching Episode 3.   I'm glad George brought the Star Wars universe to the screen and I'm glad he's doing the first three flicks.  Thank you George Lucas for this grand adventure.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jan 6, 2004)

Two things:

First... 



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> He does have two great talents: a keen business sense that I don't think anyone else in the industry can match ("Merchandising? What's that?"), and a understanding of how technology impacts film creation, and the ability to stay on that bleeding edge of technical innovation (motion-control cameras, travelling mattes, multi-channel sound, all sorts of good stuff) -- AND show off that innovation in clear and ocassionally exciting ways.




You mentioned 3 talents, not two.

Secondly....



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> George Lucas can do whatever he wants, of course.
> 
> He's not a very good director of movies. He is a worse writer of movies. He is not in any way a storyteller.
> 
> ...




I've couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 6, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> To me, Ewan MacGregor, Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, and even Sam L. Jackson don't have either the acting ability or the comfort level in their characters that Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher did; of the cast, maybe MacGregor does the best job; Jackson has done some awesome roles in the past, but he just doesn't look comfortable in his role.



Hmm. I can't helped but be skeptical of the above statement. I don't know if starting actors Harrison Ford (who previously did GL-directed film "American Graffiti") and young Carrie Fisher (first film-starring role) were comfortable making the original Trilogy. They both looked a little stiff and nervous in the first film, and just about get into their groove with the exception of their romantic scenes in the second, but by the third film, they're in there relaxing and having fun.

As for Samuel L. Jackson's discomfort, I think he's too "fan" excited to be in the _Star Wars_ films that he hopes for a chance to do more actions like he did in _Attack of the Clone._ He doesn't play a reserved character that well. Given the chance, he probably would prefer the Qui-Gon Jinn role.


----------



## Welverin (Jan 6, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> But now SW is just so...mediocre.  The story has fallen so, so far below the special effects, and even those were overshadowed by The Matrix in 1999




Well, maybe.



> and The Two Towers in 2002.




Absolutely not. At best tTT is on equal footing fx wise with Ep2, but it's not better.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Is it always "big earnings = it must be good"? Is 'NSync the best music then, because it's most sold?




You're missing the real point, if they were as bad as so many people love to say they are they never would have made so much money. If they were they would have had big opening weekends and had huge drop offs, they didn't. So the fact they made so much money doesn’t mean they’re good, but it does imply they’re no where near as bad as is frequently stated.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 6, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Absolutely not. At best tTT is on equal footing fx wise with Ep2, but it's not better.




There are a few things I didn't like about TT, but Ep2 had some horrible stuff. Robots didn't even match the backgrounds and other awfulness. A few people have commented that Helms Deep is orders of magnitude better than the Clone invasion.

Still just opinions ofc.


----------



## Krieg (Jan 6, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> I can't argue that it isn't his movie to do what he wills with. I certainly can avoid pitching any more money into that black hole of trash.




Amen


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 6, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> On the other hand, because of the above, he didn't rack up any directing experience since he did _The Empire Strikes Back_ up until _The Phantom Menace._




Lucas didn't direct _Empire Strikes Back_. That was Irvin Kershner. He didn't write it either, those credits go to Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jan 6, 2004)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> No, that's not a fact.  The movie studios want to entertain us.  In fact, they have a laundry list of sales reports, marketing reports, and customer satisfaction reports that are telling them exactly what we want to see.



Except that all of those are very flawed constructs which they misinterpret and ignore at will, anyway.  The best (and most often cited) example being the Batman movies.  After the truly, truly awful Batman & Robin did poorly compared to previous Batman movies, the studio concluded that the franchise was over-exposed, and that was the reason for the lackluster performance.  Anyone with 5 operating neurons could figure out that was a load, but it was the conclusion that allowed everyone to save face, and they conveniently had marketing reports to "prove" it.  Of course, that's not surprising.  You can prove anything with a well-designed survey.  Give me a few hours to design one, and I can use a survey to prove that the public wants nothing more than to see Vin Diesel play James Bond in a Wachowski Bros. production of "The Little Mermaid meets Octopussy in Space."

Also, if movie studios wanted to entertain us, they wouldn't be complaining that text messaging is hurting their opening weekend revenues by allowing people to get early word of serious stinkers.  If their motivation was to entertain us, they wouldn't be releasing known stinkers under the assumption that opening weekend sales would still cover costs.

The studios want our money, and they don't care is they get it by entertaining us or tricking us.

Outside of the modern movie studios there are true filmakers.  Some, like Lucas, want to tell their stories and don't really seem to care how entertaining they are to the fan base or even the mass market.  Others, like Jackson, want to entertain and tell stories.  You'll notice that Jackson doesn't exactly seem to be plugged into the whole marketing report thing.  I find that to be rather telling.


----------



## takyris (Jan 6, 2004)

I don't have any venom for Lucas, although there are aspects of the two prequels that I dislike a lot.  I enjoyed the heck out of the first trilogy, and I'm happy with that.

On the other notes... yes, as a moviegoer, you are not the purchaser.  You are the product.  You are the product that the moviemaker is generating for the studios and theaters.  Their movie is the sales pitch, and your dollar in the theater is the product.

(Yes, it's full of holes as a metaphor.  Yes, it's not as true as it is in television, where the audience is the product that TV execs sell to advertisers.  Nevertheless.)

It took me losing my job and being out of work for six months to realize that I am not obliged to see every SF movie in the theater.  I am not obliged to see any SF movie at all.  If I don't like the last movie, I don't have to see the next one.

Vote with your dollar.  That's the only way things will change.


----------



## Henry (Jan 7, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> Vote with your dollar.  That's the only way things will change.




Very good point. It's also the fact that so many people worldwide are voting with their dollars that gives reason to believe that so many people are still enjoying them - even if the people enjoying them are not the same audiences of 20 years ago.

And at the risk of sharing the fate of the hanged man from the Pace Picante Commercials, I'll state that I listened to N*Sync for several years, and their music was not medicore to me.  Their style was dynamic for sure, and I couldn't stand their love ballads, which were too repetitive to me, but technically they did have some rather complex rhythms going on in their music; Justin T. seems to have taken the talent with him, however, because he's done quite well for himself among peer awards as well as sales. It wasn't Mozart or even Chopin, but it wasn't Oaktown, either. 

With regards to Star Wars, Sam Jackson can't play reserved; he's too charismatic for that. Ewan Macgregor can play rash and impulsive, but not thoughtful - which actually works for the role as Obi-Wan; Obi-Wan was rash and impulsive even when played by Alec Guiness. The real failure is in the central character; I still can't believe Hayden C. as the man who will become Darth Vader.

But overall, there is still drive there, it's just not as compelling; it's different from saying it's not AT ALL compelling, however.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Jan 7, 2004)

Numion said:
			
		

> I just don't buy that "It was supposed to be bad, so it really isn't!" excuses when it comes to filmmaking. Crap in your pants is still crap in your pants, even if you did it on purpose.




BRILLIANT!!!

*yoink


----------



## Storm Raven (Jan 7, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Hmm. I can't helped but be skeptical of the above statement. I don't know if starting actors Harrison Ford (who previously did GL-directed film "American Graffiti") and young Carrie Fisher (first film-starring role) were comfortable making the original Trilogy. They both looked a little stiff and nervous in the first film, and just about get into their groove with the exception of their romantic scenes in the second, but by the third film, they're in there relaxing and having fun.




To be perfectly frank, in Carrie Fisher's case, her "relaxed performance" in the _Return of the Jedi_ is probably mostly attributable to the fact that (by her own admission) she was coked out of her mind throughout the filming.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jan 7, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> With regards to Star Wars, Sam Jackson can't play reserved; he's too charismatic for that. Ewan Macgregor can play rash and impulsive, but not thoughtful - which actually works for the role as Obi-Wan; Obi-Wan was rash and impulsive even when played by Alec Guiness. The real failure is in the central character; I still can't believe Hayden C. as the man who will become Darth Vader.
> 
> But overall, there is still drive there, it's just not as compelling; it's different from saying it's not AT ALL compelling, however.




I thought Portman was also better in Ep1 than Ep2. Her voice sounded more controlled. In Ep 2, she just spoke in her normal voice and it seemed to lack something. (Even when she was "Padme" her voice still seemed different.) To an extent, Liv Tyler as Arwen was the same, in the first movie she controlled her voice much better, which is noticeable to me since Tyler's voice is quite distinctive. She didn't maintain it, but it was still more controlled than Portman in Ep2. (IMO)
I think Ep 1 was bad plot/ setup, but decent acting from everyone but Anakin, whereas Ep2 was a better plot, with worse acting. They didn't seem to sync at all togethor.

I enjoyed both well enough upon watching, but can't rewatch them without the glaring plot holes and bad effects standing out. I have watched EE Fellowship and EE TT a few times without the same problems, though the dramatic speechs get skipped after a while.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 7, 2004)

Funny how you compare the acting performance of Liv Tyler as "Arwen" and Natalie Portman as "Padme", particularly the way their films were shot and produced. Liv practically had to stay nearly a year to shoot her scenes during the production of _LOTR_ (principal photography was done all at once for all three films). Of course, there may be a case of reshoots (they did reshoots of the third film past summer and fall).

For _Star Wars,_ the follow the same film production format (one film at a time) with ocassional reshoots.

As for the casting of adult Anakin, maybe Hayden Christiansen may not be the right actor, but he did perform the role of a typical prodigy very well. I was skeptical at first, but when you meet such a prodigy in real life and spend some time observing their behavior, Hayden pretty much hit the target.

I guess for the one who will become Darth Vader, one would expect his character's demeanor to be larger than life, probably one who does not display outbursts in public, but always scheming, ambitious ... you know those quiet-type of guy who for some reason one look at him and you try to distance yourself, even in a crowded elevator.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 8, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Carrie Fisher's ... "relaxed performance" in the _Return of the Jedi_ is probably mostly attributable to the fact that ... she was coked out of her mind throughout the filming.



 Because what's more relaxing than four or five lines of good Columbian snort?  

Seriously, if George Lucas had said to me, "Okay, now pretend this guy in a fur suit is an alien creature you need to make allies out of," I'd probably ask for a few hits of something or other, too.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Jan 8, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Star Wars used to be the outer space high fantasy of everyone's dreams; now its a saga of 10 year old brats, cringe inducing gungans, and Degrassi Junior High level romance set against PS2-style special effects.




Capellan was on the right track. Degrassi Junior High was a powerful, impressive show that inspired numerous spin-offs and copies (not the least of which was Beverly Hills 90210). If the writing in Episode I or II had the honest and poignant characterization that Degrassi had, it would have made the movie that much better.

That said, I still think that Episode II was pretty good and Episode I was, well, at least worth watching.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 8, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Seriously, if George Lucas had said to me, "Okay, now pretend this guy in a fur suit is an alien creature you need to make allies out of," I'd probably ask for a few hits of something or other, too.



Maybe that's what missing on the film set.  

Damn that Nancy Reagan and her "Just Say No To Drug" campaign!


----------



## Henry (Jan 8, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Maybe that's what missing on the film set.
> 
> Damn that Nancy Reagan and her "Just Say No To Drug" campaign!




Kaminoan: _"Tell Jedi Master Sifo-Dias that the Clone Army is now ready."_
Obi-Wan: _"Who said anything about a clone army? I didn't say anything about a clone army?"_
Kaminoan: _"Um... Master Jedi?"_
Obi-Wan: _"What are you up to? Why are you here? Why am I here?_
Kaminoan: _"Um... Jedi Obi-Wan?"_
Obi-Wan: _"You're here to get me, aren't you? You'll never take me alive!"_
Kaminoan: _"Urk!"_

Never mess with a Jedi before his next line.


----------



## KidCthulhu (Jan 8, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> Vote with your dollar.  That's the only way things will change.




 Which leads to my favorite quote from [contact] about the Prequels.  
"Unless George Lucas is standing in the theatre handing out handjobs and hamburgers, I'm not going."

He has a way with words, our [contact].


----------



## Ysgarran (Jan 8, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> <Snip>
> 1) No one has a "right" to make George Lucas do ANYTHING about Star Wars; it's his baby, and his franchise. He can make it as good or bad as he wants. TO assert otherwise takes something away from someone on a principle I don't like one bit. It's his rightful property, right or wrong.
> <Snip>




This is from a NY Times article a few weeks back that I thought was right on the money.  At least it made a lot of sense to me.  I know that I do not plan to go see the final installment.  The second one just had too many "I'm watching someone play a video game" moments for me.



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> Miriam Kriss put down her book to explain that she was there in tribute to Peter Jackson, "a fan who understood." Then she delivered a rather stunning tribute to the fan aesthetic:  "The problem with the last George Lucas `Star Wars' movies is that he's not a fan of his own work. You can't be if it's your work. But he doesn't understand anymore why we loved `Star Wars.'   He just sits and stares at special effects on his computers. I'd rather see `Star Wars' movies
> by people who grew up with `Star Wars.' A fan would get it."




Edit:
The orignal NYTimes article isn't freely available anymore but here is another article by the same writer:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2093334/
Look at what he has to say about 'Kill Bill' and the fan aesthetic.  Again, I agree with what he has to say.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 8, 2004)

Why do so many reviews, by fans and pros, and discussions about Star Wars revolve around comparisons to the LotR flicks?  And vice versa?  Bring up Star Wars and someone chimes in with how much better LotR is to them, or talk about LotR and someone always has to throw a shot at GL in there.


----------



## Henry (Jan 8, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Why do so many reviews, by fans and pros, and discussions about Star Wars revolve around comparisons to the LotR flicks?  And vice versa?




Mainly because the new LOTR films make them feel like they did when they watched the first three Star Wars movies. I don't know why exactly -- the newness of the films, the smaller expectations which were exceeded, or the plotlines which did focus admittedly on more mature themes than SW 1 and SW 2 did. Whatever the reason, I will admit that it didn't feel as swept away by the special effects of the LOTR films as I did the SW films - I personally felt that in LOTR, the special effects supplemented the story, where as in the two SW films they've served to supplant the story. 

Personally, I came out of the SW films saying, "Wow! Awesome! Cool!" I came out of the three LOTR films talking how Serkis did a great job capturing Gollum's desires, or how Mortennsen nailed Aragorn's nobility on the head.

Or maybe it was that Star Wars has had a decade of good Sci-Fi and three idolized movies to to live up to, while the Rings Trilogy had a decade of poor Fantasy and a series of books to live up to that few expected it to emulate. Lower expectations mean you are happier with something you otherwise wouldn't be. I know I didn't expect Pirates of the Carribean to be that good, and I would stake it as the best movie of 2003.


----------



## Ysgarran (Jan 8, 2004)

I'm not sure why, but you are correct, there definately is a lot of commentary in making those comparisons.  I get the impression that are alot of people out there who really wish that Mr. Lucas had spaced the three SW movies much closer together.  Instead of taking rather than taking 6 years from start to end, taking only 3 years from start to end (like the LOTR movies).



			
				Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Why do so many reviews, by fans and pros, and discussions about Star Wars revolve around comparisons to the LotR flicks?


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 8, 2004)

I think that LotR and SW are 2 entirely different animals compared only because the fantasy/sci-fi fans make it so.  They also have huge sprawling universes and histories/futures.  However, it is us who are making the big comparison.  I am simply greatful to be alive and well to witness both in their entirety.  I am thankful for Lucas and his vision and I am thankful for Jackson and his passion.  Two different animals.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jan 8, 2004)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Why do so many reviews, by fans and pros, and discussions about Star Wars revolve around comparisons to the LotR flicks?  And vice versa?  Bring up Star Wars and someone chimes in with how much better LotR is to them, or talk about LotR and someone always has to throw a shot at GL in there.



Because they are the two Holy Trilogies of Geekdom.  Most geeks seem to be tempermentally required to assert the superiority of one or the other and defend their selection to the death.

We're nothing if not predictable, as a group.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Jan 8, 2004)

If you haven't yet, then sign the petition asking Lucas to release the OT, untouched and un"improved," on DVD.

Check out this list of putative changes to be included in the "Ultimate Edition" DVD set:



> [from _theforce.net_]
> It has been reported all over the web and on this website for months, though now there's a resurgence in the rumors that an eventual and final release of the Classic Trilogy is coming. Where these rumors are coming from now is a person emailing a list of changes to websites and telling them work is being done. And while we can defintiely confirm that ILM is working on the movies for plenty of enhancements, the list may not be accurate.
> Here's the run down of possible and very rumored changes:
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom Cashel (Jan 8, 2004)

SIGN THE PETITION!!!


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 8, 2004)

I saw that list on AICN.com a while back.  The speculation seems interesting.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 8, 2004)

It was a rumour proved wrong already.

Also, it was brought up again because of Lucas talking about the OT DVDs and saying that he's, "Glad to release the movies as they were intended to be seen."

People...that's the Special Edition. No, we're not going to see the pre-Special Edition, but no...he's not changing it more.


----------



## KenM (Jan 8, 2004)

GL can't finish anything, can he?    He is going to "touch up" TPM now as well? Be happy with what you did, with the technolgay you at at the time.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 8, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> GL can't finish anything, can he?  He is going to "touch up" TPM now as well? Be happy with what you did, with the technolgay you ad at the time.



There has been no official press release confirming any of that.  Lucas isn't the only one to release Special Editions of his films.  Don't crucify him until he actually makes the changes, which haven't been close to confirmed.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 9, 2004)

The list is bogus. Expect only a few minor effect shots cleaned up, McDirmad Replaceing Rivells in Empire, and greedo shooting first. No other changes.

I've enjoyed the other two star wars prequels, but they don't hold a candle the first. Instead, I view them as a new set of movies that borrow from my favorite series. From what I know of EP III, most of the general criticisms will be patched. (Except for bad acting, not alot we can do there.)

Oh, and can we get away from the "George Lucas raped my childhood" motif and remember they are just movies.


----------



## buzzard (Jan 9, 2004)

I must say I'm rather pleased I have Star Wars (A New Hope before they called it that) on laserdisc in all in un-"enhanced" glory. I didn't pick up the rest, which I suppose I regret, but I will always have the orginal. 

buzzard


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 9, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> I must say I'm rather pleased I have Star Wars (A New Hope before they called it that) on laserdisc in all in un-"enhanced" glory. I didn't pick up the rest, which I suppose I regret, but I will always have the orginal.
> 
> buzzard



That's what ebay is for.


----------



## KidCthulhu (Jan 9, 2004)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Oh, and can we get away from the "George Lucas raped my childhood" motif and remember they are just movies.




I don't think George raped my childhood.  I am mad at him for producing a not very good movie, and expecting me to like it simply because it is "Star Wars".  Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining, George.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 9, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I think that LotR and SW are 2 entirely different animals compared only because the fantasy/sci-fi fans make it so.  They also have huge sprawling universes and histories/futures.  However, it is us who are making the big comparison.  I am simply greatful to be alive and well to witness both in their entirety.  I am thankful for Lucas and his vision and I am thankful for Jackson and his passion.  Two different animals.




The thing that amuses me is that if George Lucas were to release Star Wars Episode 3 on DVD, and then release a special edition a few months later with added scenes, people would be screaming in outrage and calling him a money-grubbing bastard.

Yet, Peter Jackson is doing the same thing with Lord of the Rings, and people love him for it.

That's because in the past few years, it's become fashionable to make George Lucas out to be the antichrist, while Peter Jackson is the greatest director in movie history.

As for myself, I love both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings.  These last few years have been extremely good moviegoing years for me.


----------



## John Crichton (Jan 9, 2004)

KidCthulhu said:
			
		

> I don't think George raped my childhood. I am mad at him for producing a not very good movie, and expecting me to like it simply because it is "Star Wars". Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining, George.



Or maybe it is raining and you see piss.  I can't disagree with your opinion of films, you obviously didn't like them but that doesn't mean they were bad, just bad to you.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 9, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> The thing that amuses me is that if George Lucas were to release Star Wars Episode 3 on DVD, and then release a special edition a few months later with added scenes, people would be screaming in outrage and calling him a money-grubbing bastard.
> 
> Yet, Peter Jackson is doing the same thing with Lord of the Rings, and people love him for it.
> 
> That's because in the past few years, it's become fashionable to make George Lucas out to be the antichrist, while Peter Jackson is the greatest director in movie history.




I thought this bears repeating.  

For each flick three different DVD sets, theatrical, EE, and EE boxed set with bonus DVD and bookends.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jan 9, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> The thing that amuses me is that if George Lucas were to release Star Wars Episode 3 on DVD, and then release a special edition a few months later with added scenes, people would be screaming in outrage and calling him a money-grubbing bastard.
> 
> Yet, Peter Jackson is doing the same thing with Lord of the Rings, and people love him for it.



To be fair, Jackson doesn't tout the EEs as "new, improved, and definitive" the way Star Wars re-releases are marketed.  He calls the theatrical versions the real version and the EEs the version for geeks like himself who dig all that stuff.  Plus, BOTH versions are available.  He's not producing versions that a large portion of his fanbase likes less to the exclusion of others.  That's a substantial difference, as well.


----------



## Garmorn (Jan 9, 2004)

I allways get a chuckle out of these E1-3 are horriable rants. Lucus him self said in an interview (on the orginal VHS tape) that if he had done the first three before the second three no one would have watched them because they would not have been worth watching.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 9, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> If George Lucas were to release Star Wars Episode 3 on DVD, and then release a special edition a few months later with added scenes, people would be screaming in outrage and calling him a money-grubbing bastard.



Well, as a prediction that's worth as much as any other -- nothing.

We'll see how people react when Lucas does release them.

I suspect we'll see, like we did with Indiana Jones, box sets of either the two trilogies each or all six together -- in order to get people to buy all the movies just to get the ones they like. But hey, there's another prediction for you. Worth just as much as any other.



But I promise not to call him a money-grubbing bastard.


----------



## Goodsport (Jan 9, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> He got lucky with _Star Wars_. It's one of those films where everything came together at the right moment in history. And then he stepped back and gave _Empire_ to a talented team and let them look after it. And since then?




Well, I would say the Indiana Jones trilogy (all three films hit theaters after _Empire_)... although your point is still pretty valid since while Lucas co-wrote the first and third (and wrote the second) IJ films, he still handed them over to a _very_ talented team to film.

Also, don't forget that _Return of the Jedi_ also wasn't directed by Lucas. but by Richard Marquand.

Personally, I liked Parts 1 and 2 well enough, although I would agree that there's something missing from them that the original trilogy had.


-G


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 10, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> The thing that amuses me is that if George Lucas were to release Star Wars Episode 3 on DVD, and then release a special edition a few months later with added scenes, people would be screaming in outrage and calling him a money-grubbing bastard.



You're just guessing.  And you're guess goes against the fact that Lucas has released a dozen different versions of the original trilogy on VHS and laserdisc, and fans happily bought them up each time.  Screams of outrage?  I think not.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Yet, Peter Jackson is doing the same thing with Lord of the Rings, and people love him for it.



PJ destroyed the original negative for the theatrical releases of the LOTR films and will never release them again?  That bastard!


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> You're just guessing.  And you're guess goes against the fact that Lucas has released a dozen different versions of the original trilogy on VHS and laserdisc, and fans happily bought them up each time.




There's a difference between reprints and new editions that feature new footage, Kai Lord.

I've got two VHS tapes of the original Star Wars.  One version has Luke, Leia, and Han on the cover.  The other has a picture of Darth Vader's helmet.  Other than that, the two movies are identical.  The only reason I got a newer VHS tape was because my older one was so worn out that it was nearly unwatchable.

AFAIK, there are only two versions of the original Star Wars trilogy out there.  The originals, and the Special Editions which were came out in 1997.  Other than that, the only differences between the various VHS and Laserdisc editions are video and audio quality.



> Screams of outrage?  I think not.




You should have heard people howling when GL decided to release The Phantom Menace on DVD.  "What!?  He's releasing it on DVD already?  Less than two years ago he released it on VHS only!  He's just doing this to milk the fans out of more money!"



> PJ destroyed the original negative for the theatrical releases of the LOTR films and will never release them again?  That bastard!




Did you even read my post, Kai Lord?  I was presenting a hypothetical situation where George Lucas released Episode 3 on DVD followed by an Extended Edition a few months later.  I didn't mention anything even remotely resembling PJ destroying the theatrical prints of the LotR movies and only releasing extended editions afterwards.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 10, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> There's a difference between reprints and new editions that feature new footage, Kai Lord.



Yep and that's what almost every Star Wars fan wants.  A reprint of the old movies on DVD.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> You should have heard people howling when GL decided to release The Phantom Menace on DVD.  "What!?  He's releasing it on DVD already?  Less than two years ago he released it on VHS only!  He's just doing this to milk the fans out of more money!"



Oh you mean when he stated that TPM wouldn't be on DVD until 2006, then released it on VHS, waited for everyone who wanted it to buy the tape, _then_ announced the upcoming DVD release a few months later?

Not remotely close to PJ announcing both versions of the LOTR DVD's before either one hit shelves, with a coupon for one included with the other.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Did you even read my post, Kai Lord?  I was presenting a hypothetical situation where George Lucas released Episode 3 on DVD followed by an Extended Edition a few months later.  I didn't mention anything even remotely resembling PJ destroying the theatrical prints of the LotR movies and only releasing extended editions afterwards.



Well that's what George has done.  And that's what annoys people.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Yep and that's what almost every Star Wars fan wants.  A reprint of the old movies on DVD.




When you say "most Star Wars fans", are you basing that on actual market research, or extremely vocal internet fanboys who are outraged over the scene where Greedo shoots first?



> Oh you mean when he stated that TPM wouldn't be on DVD until 2006, then released it on VHS, waited for everyone who wanted it to buy the tape, _then_ announced the upcoming DVD release a few months later?




Yep, that's it.  It's all part of George Lucas' evil plan to screw money out of people who have an obsessive/compulsive need to buy everything with the Star Wars logo on it.

Although it was amusing to watch the reactions on internet forums over the whole TPM DVD issue.  First, they were flaming GL because he decided to release it on VHS only.  Then, when he decided to release the DVD sooner than he intitially stated he would, they flamed him again.



> Well that's what George has done.  And that's what annoys people.




Because George Lucas is the devil, and everything Peter Jackson touches turns to gold.


----------



## Welverin (Jan 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Oh you mean when he stated that TPM wouldn't be on DVD until 2006, then released it on VHS, waited for everyone who wanted it to buy the tape, _then_ announced the upcoming DVD release a few months later?




He had no intention of releasing it on DVD until after Ep3 was done but fans whined so damn much he changed his mind and gave them what they wanted, then a different group of fans whined about him releasing them after they bought it on tape.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I was presenting a hypothetical situation where George Lucas released Episode 3 on DVD followed by an Extended Edition a few months later.  I didn't mention anything even remotely resembling PJ destroying the theatrical prints of the LotR movies and only releasing extended editions afterwards.




There is an important distinction between what happened with Ep1 and the LotR movies. With LotR the extended version were announced before the theatrical version was released (I believe they were even announced at the same time).


----------



## jdavis (Jan 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Many people, inside and outside the film industry (myself included), believe that one of the primary reasons the SW prequels have been *ahem* "lacking" is due to the fact that no one has had the testicular fortitude to stand up to Lucas and tell him which of his ideas just plain suck,



Get me a job with Lucas films and I'll tell him, he's getting old and out of shape and I bet I can take him (and I'm sure I can outrun him if not).


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 10, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> When you say "most Star Wars fans", are you basing that on actual market research, or extremely vocal internet fanboys who are outraged over the scene where Greedo shoots first?



Star Wars fans.  As in fans of the original "Star Wars" released in 1977.  As in fans of the movie that is not currently on DVD, nor probably ever will be.  I don't need "market research" to know that fans of movies who own DVD players like to own said movies on DVD.  Its common sense.

But since you brought it up, I'd like to take a look at the official market research you conducted to determine that people criticize Lucas simply because its "fashionable."  Lots of people have been criticizing George on this very forum.  Find me *one* who called him the antichrist.  Or believes that everything PJ touches turns to gold.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Although it was amusing to watch the reactions on internet forums over the whole TPM DVD issue.  First, they were flaming GL because he decided to release it on VHS only.  Then, when he decided to release the DVD sooner than he intitially stated he would, they flamed him again.



Yep, because he announced the DVD's that _were already in production_ mere weeks after the VHS release.  What annoyed people who wanted to own the best home version of TPM was that he sold them the videotapes _knowing_ that the DVD's were right aroung the corner, *after* it had been made "official" that they were six years away.

Purchasing a video of a movie a full six years before the supposed release of the DVD isn't exactly compulsive behavior.  Its buying the only version available, then being slapped in the face by having an announcement of a better version almost immediately after.

Does that mean that Peter Jackson has much more respect for fans of his movies?  Yes it does.  Does it make George Lucas an evil antichrist?  Nope.  Just a man with little respect for the medium of film or filmgoers, a man who once was a part of a great saga and is now a part of a mediocre saga.

Can he do what he wants with his money and his intellectual property?  Of course.  Am I going to gush over it when it doesn't deserve it?  No way.  Is it fun to scrutinize what worked and what went wrong with the saga, while comparing it to other fantasy films such as LOTR?  You bet.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jan 10, 2004)

jdavis said:
			
		

> Get me a job with Lucas films and I'll tell him, he's getting old and out of shape and I bet I can take him (and I'm sure I can outrun him if not).



 I got $20 and a copy of "Al-Qadim: Ruined Kingdoms" says the fat film director takes out the cranky ENWorld poster. Any takers?


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Star Wars fans.  As in fans of the original "Star Wars" released in 1977.  As in fans of the movie that is not currently on DVD, nor probably ever will be.  I don't need "market research" to know that fans of movies who own DVD players like to own said movies on DVD.  Its common sense.




So Star Wars isn't Star Wars because it's not the exact same version that appeared in theaters in 1977?

When that movie that isn't Star Wars is released on DVD later this year, I'll try to keep that in mind as I watch the lightsaber battle, jedi mind trick, and attack on the Death Star.  Because the reasons that it isn't Star Wars is because Greedo shoots first and Jabba has a chat with Han.



> But since you brought it up, I'd like to take a look at the official market research you conducted to determine that people criticize Lucas simply because its "fashionable."  Lots of people have been criticizing George on this very forum.  Find me *one* who called him the antichrist.  Or believes that everything PJ touches turns to gold.




I don't need market research to observe the "love PJ, hate GL" attitute that has become prevelent both online and offline the last few years, as I wasn't relating it to the demand of a particular product.  Granted, perhaps if I were trying to determine the potential for a documentry called "Why George Lucas is Old and Busted and Peter Jackson is the New Hotness" I would need the kind of market reasearch you are demanding I produce.  But since there is no such documentry, any such market research would probably be hard to come by or unnessecary to undertake.



> Yep, because he announced the DVD's that _were already in production_ mere weeks after the VHS release.  What annoyed people who wanted to own the best home version of TPM was that he sold them the videotapes _knowing_ that the DVD's were right aroung the corner, *after* it had been made "official" that they were six years away.
> 
> Purchasing a video of a movie a full six years before the supposed release of the DVD isn't exactly compulsive behavior.  Its buying the only version available, then being slapped in the face by having an announcement of a better version almost immediately after.




The Phantom Menace was released on VHS on April 4, 2000.

On June 19, 2001.  It was officially announced that The Phantom Menace was coming out on DVD.

Your definition of "mere weeks" and "immediately after" is much different than that of most people I know.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 10, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Did you even read my post, Kai Lord?  I was presenting a hypothetical situation where George Lucas released Episode 3 on DVD followed by an Extended Edition a few months later.



Oh, and for the record, George did _exactly_ that.  TPM on VHS.  Then, a few months later, TPM EE on DVD with an extra lap in the Pod Race sequence.  

And even AOTC was touched up in a few places on the DVD, such as the additional fizzling of Jango's jetpack.  So _no_ original version of _any_ of the five SW films exist on DVD.  Films are no longer art to George, they're buggy programs to endlessly patch.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Oh, and for the record, George did _exactly_ that.  TPM on VHS.  Then, a few months later, TPM EE on DVD with an extra lap in the Pod Race sequence.
> 
> And even AOTC was touched up in a few places on the DVD, such as the additional fizzling of Jango's jetpack.  So _no_ original version of _any_ of the five SW films exist on DVD.  Films are no longer art to George, they're buggy programs to endlessly patch.




By that logic, no original versions of Fellowship of the Ring exist because PJ edited out the car in the background of the scene where Frodo and Sam are walking through a cornfield.

And regarding the Phantom Menace DVD, check my last post where I listed the dates when TPM came out on VHS and when the official announcement was made regarding the DVD.  It was well over a year.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 10, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> So Star Wars isn't Star Wars because it's not the exact same version that appeared in theaters in 1977?



No, Star Wars: Special Edition isn't Star Wars.  I can take or leave the addition of the "Episode IV A New Hope" (the subtitle was added before it was rereleased a few years after '77) since its still the same movie, shot for shot.

SW:SE has different characters (Jabba and Boba Fett), characterizations (Han is no longer a quick on the draw survivalist, Greedo is no longer a threat of _any_ kind), scenes, special effects, dialogue.  Its a different movie.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> When that movie that isn't Star Wars is released on DVD later this year, I'll try to keep that in mind as I watch the lightsaber battle, jedi mind trick, and attack on the Death Star.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 10, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> By that logic, no original versions of Fellowship of the Ring exist because PJ edited out the car in the background of the scene where Frodo and Sam are walking through a cornfield.



Good.  Every bit as forgiveable as the "Episode IV" change to Star Wars or the digital erasing of Harrison Ford's reflection on some protective glass in Raiders of the Lost Ark.  I saw FOTR seven times in the theatre and never once noticed the car, so I couldn't care less.  Now if the only version on DVD had Frodo stepping on Shelob's pudgy ass in Bree while the Witch King nodded at the camera that'd be a different story.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> And regarding the Phantom Menace DVD, check my last post where I listed the dates when TPM came out on VHS and when the official announcement was made regarding the DVD.  It was well over a year.



Yep.  See my post above.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 10, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> No, Star Wars: Special Edition isn't Star Wars.  I can take or leave the addition of the "Episode IV A New Hope" (the subtitle was added before it was rereleased a few years after '77) since its still the same movie, shot for shot.
> 
> SW:SE has different characters (Jabba and Boba Fett), characterizations (Han is no longer a quick on the draw survivalist, Greedo is no longer a threat of _any_ kind), scenes, special effects, dialogue.  Its a different movie.




Ah well, that's where we'll have to disagree.  I was satisfied for the most part with the Special Editions back in '97.  Granted, I could have done without Greedo shooting first, but I wasn't going to let it ruin my entire opinion of the Special Editions and claim that George Lucas was raping my childhood.



> *chuckles*  You might not want to ask someone to provide "actual market research" to back up a counter point when you have none to begin with.  I knew you didn't have any, but since you brought it up I couldn't resist.




I don't think it was such a bad call.  You stated that most Star Wars fans would rather see the Original Editions rather than the Special Editions on DVD.  I've never seen any evidence to support your claim (and before you ask, no, I haven't seen any evidence to say that most people would rather see the Special Editions on DVD), and was wondering if you could back it up in any way.

My point (that it's become fashionable to hate George Lucas) is supported by newspaper and magazine articles, comedies like South Park and the Simpsons, and late night talk show monologues over the past 5 years.  The internet also supports my point, but the internet on a whole tends to be a very pessimistic place so I didn't list it among the others.  When The Phantom Menace came out, intital reviews started saying things like "It was good, but not as good as I'd hoped it would be" and "It was kind of a letdown."  Pretty soon, you couldn't attend any sizable gathering of Star Wars fans without hearing comments like "Lucas raped my childhood!" and "He's lost it.  He should hand over the prequels to somebody else."  Even non-genre fans can crack jokes about George Lucas and get laughs from other non-genre fans.


----------



## buzzard (Jan 10, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> My point (that it's become fashionable to hate George Lucas) is supported by newspaper and magazine articles, comedies like South Park and the Simpsons, and late night talk show monologues over the past 5 years.  The internet also supports my point, but the internet on a whole tends to be a very pessimistic place so I didn't list it among the others.  When The Phantom Menace came out, intital reviews started saying things like "It was good, but not as good as I'd hoped it would be" and "It was kind of a letdown."  Pretty soon, you couldn't attend any sizable gathering of Star Wars fans without hearing comments like "Lucas raped my childhood!" and "He's lost it.  He should hand over the prequels to somebody else."  Even non-genre fans can crack jokes about George Lucas and get laughs from other non-genre fans.




I disliked both prequels before I even left the theatres (thus I will skip the next). My opinions are not dependent on current fashion. Yes, I suppose some people have jumped on said bandwagon, but if the movies weren't good, they weren't good. Irrationality on the part of some critics does not mitigate that. 

buzzard


----------



## reapersaurus (Jan 10, 2004)

you guys are quibbling over .... small things, to say the least.

unequivocably, Dark Jezter is right - it HAS become fashionable to bash Lucas, and say the same tired things about the prequels.

Anyone who doesn't agree has not been alive the past few years.

And this quote was VERY funny:







> Granted, perhaps if I were trying to determine the potential for a documentry called "Why George Lucas is Old and Busted and Peter Jackson is the New Hotness" I would need the kind of market reasearch you are demanding I produce.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 10, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> I don't think it was such a bad call.  You stated that most Star Wars fans would rather see the Original Editions rather than the Special Editions on DVD.



Actually I said the majority of SW fans want the original on DVD, and not moreso than the SE.  I certainly hope more people want the original than the SE, God knows I don't want George to be encouraged.  But given Spielberg's change of heart and release of the original E.T., and the commentary on those with a desire to preserve film history, I don't think its that far of a stretch to say that the originals are held in higher regard.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> My point (that it's become fashionable to hate George Lucas)




Your point was that "in the past few years, it's become fashionable to make George Lucas out to be the antichrist, while Peter Jackson is the greatest director in movie history."
Your hyperbole suggests that people are criticizing Lucas to ridiculous degrees simply because its "cool".  Calling him the antichrist is ridiculous.  And no one has done that, _certainly_ not in great enough numbers to be worth mentioning.  And no one worth mentioning does it simply for the sake of being fashionable.  The _reason_ its fashionable is the criticisms are valid and he brought them on himself.

Ditto for the praise toward Jackson.  Your comment was dismissive, as if people don't know what they're talking about or aren't thinking for themselves and are just foaming at the mouth and screaming without provocation or reason.

No one's foaming, screaming, cursing the sky, or bringing statutory rape charges against George for what he did to their childhoods.  But people still have plenty to criticize.  And when the criticisms are magnified by the contrast of praise George earned the first time he visited Star Wars, well, this is what it looks like.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> When The Phantom Menace came out, intital reviews started saying things like "It was good, but not as good as I'd hoped it would be" and "It was kind of a letdown."



TPM got a "cream of the crop" critic rating of 40% at rottentomatoes.com.  Ouch.

Lets take a look at what the critics actually said:

"Many of the scenes feel shapeless and flat—they're not ended, but abandoned."
-- David Ansen, NEWSWEEK

"After waiting 16 years for the overture to this epic saga, this is what we get? An in-progress trade war?"
-- Mark Caro, CHICAGO TRIBUNE

"The line readings of Portman and Lloyd are often flat, or flat-out wrong!"
-- Richard Corliss, TIME MAGAZINE

"Everything about this film is so mechanical you wonder if it was written, directed and acted by 'droids.'"
-- Rod Dreher, NEW YORK POST

"Story. Character. They used to mean something to George Lucas."
-- John Hartl, FILM.COM

There are positive quotes as well, but from the "cream of the crop" critics that people actually listen to, 60% of them echo the sentiments above.  No one changed their minds to suddenly become cool.



			
				Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Pretty soon, you couldn't attend any sizable gathering of Star Wars fans without hearing comments like "Lucas raped my childhood!" and "He's lost it.  He should hand over the prequels to somebody else."  Even non-genre fans can crack jokes about George Lucas and get laughs from other non-genre fans.



Any kind of lag in the criticism you perceived was most assuredly the delay caused by the buzz of seeing a new SW film on the big screen.  But, like the  South Park audience watching the beginning of the Raiders of the Lost Ark SE, they cheered when the ewoks showed up and started shooting lasers at Indy, then sat dumbfounded, then got royally pissed and started screaming before their heads exploded.  Okay so that didn't exactly happen with SW (I think only a couple of people's faces actually melted while watching it) but you get the idea.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 11, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> There are positive quotes as well, but from the "cream of the crop" critics that people actually listen to, 60% of them echo the sentiments above.




I'm not going to jump into this discussion...but I've got to say one thing.

People listen to critics?!


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 11, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> People listen to critics?!




Good point. I make it a habit not to take the words of a critic with even the smallest grain of salt -- at least not until I'm familiar with his or her MO. This applies to film, book, and RPG critics. Often, just based on what I already know about a critic's likes and dislikes, I can pretty accurately guess what their comments will be before reading the review. Quite a bit of the time my guesses are right.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm not defending the relevance of certain scenes or the wooden and dead-pan acting, but I do think the prequels are good for bringing the universe to life to a degree that the classics were unable to. I think that a large part of the problem with the prequels is that George was focusing way too much on the special effects and not enough on the acting. He was less interested in telling an interesting story than he was wanting to blow us away with the most over the top special effects extravaganza ever committed to film. I think he succeeded in one regard while failing in the other.

I agree that maybe things could have been better if he would have delegated some of his responsibilities to people that could better focus on them, and I think that his approach to post-production directing is a failed experiment.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 11, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I'm not going to jump into this discussion...but I've got to say one thing.
> 
> People listen to critics?!



With regard to the "cream of the crop" critics (Rolling Stone, USA Today, Ebert & Roeper, Entertainment Weekly, etc.) yes, people in general listen to them much moreso than the reviews by Billy Joe Random from KRAP Radio News in Podunk, North Dakota.

Whether or not people listen to critics in general is another discussion completely.  Short answer:  Sometimes.  Depends on the movie and which critics are saying what.  Some films are critic proof, others can find or lose an audience based on critical acclaim.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jan 11, 2004)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> Anyway, back on topic, I'm not defending the relevance of certain scenes or the wooden and dead-pan acting, but I do think the prequels are good for bringing the universe to life to a degree that the classics were unable to.



That I agree with.  Kind of like watching Jurassic Park 3.  Horrible movie, but really cool to see what pteranadons probably looked like.


----------



## Orius (Jan 11, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> It was a rumour proved wrong already.
> 
> Also, it was brought up again because of Lucas talking about the OT DVDs and saying that he's, "Glad to release the movies as they were intended to be seen."
> 
> People...that's the Special Edition. No, we're not going to see the pre-Special Edition, but no...he's not changing it more.




Yeah, I pretty much figured that list was a load when I read the stuff for Jedi.


----------



## Gnarlo (Jan 11, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I got $20 and a copy of "Al-Qadim: Ruined Kingdoms" says the fat film director takes out the cranky ENWorld poster. Any takers?




I'll take that bet. 'Cuz Lucas, since he's the good guy, will be forced to let JD shoot first, and I'm betting JD is a better shot than Greedo


----------



## Henry (Jan 12, 2004)

All I'll say is, 

Put the Special Edition on DVD, MAKE HAN SHOOT FIRST, and I'd buy it. I had no other qualms about the SE - it was a sweet piece of revitalization.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 12, 2004)

I agree Henry.  I had no problems whatsoever with the SE's.  People act like the Han/Greedo scene was a defining scene in the trilogy.  I don't think it was that important in the movies.  I liked the new effects, the new scenes are neither here nor there in most cases.  I don't see anything that different.  

People just love to bitch about whatever George Lucas does.


----------

