George Lucas: 1983 vs. 2005

[Jerrod Cordell]

Everything is explained in this video of George Lucas on Date Line from 1999:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtSOMZEXv34

Love it!

I also love how everyone took a funny picture and turned it into a giant flame-fest.

Miguel, would you act this way if a director was talking to you about using more visual effects than CGI effects to give the movie more realism? If you made a giant outburst like this I can guarantee the director would be looking for a different VFX artist.

 

[MichaelHalsell]

He's completely funded for his next project. God Bless.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I can't speak for Miguel but my complaint isn't ever that people use more practical or more cg effects. My complaint is when the VFX is BLAMED for a movie being bad when it had little to nothing to do with the quality of the film. (And as has been pointed out over and over and over again there were more practical effects in the prequels than the original series).

If a director said he wanted to use an optical matte instead of a digital one I would strongly attempt to dissuade him and try to see if we couldn't deliver more easily what he was actually wanting from the optical matte.

If a director doesn't think cg can deliver the same quality as practical but the fx supe things otherwise then it's up to the supervisor to prove to the contrary.

You know what else was used in the Prequels instead of the originals? Digital cameras. I bet digital cameras ruined it. Or maybe it was because it wasn't shot on anamorphic. Or maybe it's because the electricians used a different kind of power cord. Or maybe it was because they didn't use Anamorphic lenses for the second two. Or maybe it was because they used remote follow focus units in shots.

It's just so stupid and absurd to blame the suckiness of a movie on one single improvement in technology.

 

[Felix K.]

I can't speak for Miguel but my complaint isn't ever that people use more practical or more cg effects. My complaint is when the VFX is BLAMED for a movie being bad when it had little to nothing to do with the quality of the film. (And as has been pointed out over and over and over again there were more practical effects in the prequels than the original series).

If a director said he wanted to use an optical matte instead of a digital one I would strongly attempt to dissuade him and try to see if we couldn't deliver more easily what he was actually wanting from the optical matte.

If a director doesn't think cg can deliver the same quality as practical but the fx supe things otherwise then it's up to the supervisor to prove to the contrary.

You know what else was used in the Prequels instead of the originals? Digital cameras. I bet digital cameras ruined it. Or maybe it was because it wasn't shot on anamorphic. Or maybe it's because the electricians used a different kind of power cord. Or maybe it was because they didn't use Anamorphic lenses for the second two. Or maybe it was because they used remote follow focus units in shots.

It's just so stupid and absurd to blame the suckiness of a movie on one single improvement in technology.

I think that is a quite narrow view.

Most people blamed it on a lot of things in this thread. Mainly GL himself. And agreed that the VFX were not what they hoped they would be.
We didn't criticism them in general (and we mentioned the cameras);
we were mainly shocked by the way this comment (which was just a funny sarcastic picture; humor, guys, humor) was taken by Miguel who felt personally attacked.

And then somehow that became the topic ending in Jerrod's statement, that that kind of reaction would maybe not go down well with a director.

What would we know why the director in Jerrod's example thought SFX were more to his taste than VFX. Could be an artistic choice...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

But it's a common attack. An attack that this picture is the flagship battleship floated out to fight. Time and time again.

"CG and greenscreens are making movies suck."

There is a greater context to this argument than this one thread. And it's the direction every other thread started (some even here on reduser with that very image) immediately devolve into. Miguel was just faster on the counter-attack.

 

[Felix K.]

"CG and greenscreens are making movies suck."

Well, I never thought that. I think they didn't make Episode 1-3 better.

Maybe its a common attack because it is a very obvious flaw to many people.

There are LOTS of others but we don't have to list those again.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It's not specific to Episode 1-3. It's a general comment that "CG and Greenscreens are 'ruining cinema'." to quote the last thread on the subject.

 

[Eythan Holladay]

@Daniel >> because it is he who cannot be named

 

[Felix K.]

It's not specific to Episode 1-3. It's a general comment that "CG and Greenscreens are 'ruining cinema'." to quote the last thread on the subject.

Yeah, but the question then is, who dragged the last thread into this...

 

[Joe G.]

"You know what else was used in the Prequels instead of the originals? Digital cameras. I bet digital cameras ruined it. Or maybe it was because it wasn't shot on anamorphic."

Wow.

These two factors are what I left out the last time, as the discussion is pretty crappy all around, and why bother?

But, yeah the limited DR of the Sony camera certainly affected what was up on the screen and why it looked like shit, and not like a Star Wars movie.

Were all 3 of the first shot anamorphic, and no so the second batch?

Seems pretty, unquestionably, relevant. And a great blunder on Lucas' part.

Why we're NOT allowed to call out various pieces of the puzzle and discuss them fairly seems strange to me. Isn't that the purpose of message boards, etc.? Whatever.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

But Episode I was mostly shot on film was it not? And I thought the third was the best of the prequels so in that regard...

I don't think anyone would have had any problems with the amount of CG, Miniatures, camera, lens or film stock had the story and editing been better. There's no puzzle as to why the movies were a let down and it comes down to largely to a black and white piece of paper and a guy with glasses and a beard.

Maybe they sucked because they used Avid instead of a Moviola? It's just so silly to target all of the least consequential factors in the sucktitude of the prequels.

 

[Felix K.]

But Episode I was mostly shot on film was it not? And I thought the third was the best of the prequels so in that regard...

I don't think anyone would have had any problems with the amount of CG, Miniatures, camera, lens or film stock had the story and editing been better. There's no puzzle as to why the movies were a let down and it comes down to largely to a black and white piece of paper and a guy with glasses and a beard.

Maybe they sucked because they used Avid instead of a Moviola? It's just so silly to target all of the least consequential factors in the sucktitude of the prequels.

Gavin, please understand that there is a difference between:

1) I don't like the CG in Episode I-III.

2) I think Episode I-III are ONLY bad because of the CG.

It is a huge difference. And even option 2 can be justified if somebody thinks that the quality (to his tasting) of the CG is elemental to his approval of the movie.
There could be people out there who do not care much about a story or an actor's performance but care about how cool everything looks. And there are also people who work in an industry that long that they cannot have an unbiased look at things. They will always see their field of interest first and an abysmal verdict in their special field of interest might then ruin the whole movie for them.
I come from an audio background. You can have somebody record my favourite book read by my favorite actor. If the audio guys screw up and e.g. have every smack of the actor's lips amplified to the same level as the voice, I will not listen for more than 30 seconds.

And I think even if any of the new SW movies would have been perfect in any other way than the CG elements, I still would have noticed and disapproved.

 

[Zack CC]

As bad as they may have been... you all went to see them, and I've gotta thank you! You paid Lucas, and he put 175 million into our school, so think of a % of your ticket cost as an investment in higher education! ;-p

 

[Felix K.]

As bad as they may have been... you all went to see them, and I've gotta thank you! You paid Lucas, and he put 175 million into our school, so think of a % of your ticket cost as an investment in higher education! ;-p

Sure we went; how can you judge what you haven't seen.

Other than that: you're welcome.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Haha I didn't just see them I saw Episode I like 6 times in theater.

But I'm incredibly tolerant of most anything. A movie has to actively work to piss me off for me to dislike it usually.

 

[MiguelOrtega]

Sure we went; how can you judge what you haven't seen.

Other than that: you're welcome.

admit it youre only mad cause you went dressed as a stormtrooper and you felt betrayed cause they revamped the costumes and now you look like you have an outdated costume.. :hand: