 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Hi,
I am a big fan of Star wars,
I have been hooked ever since my father took me to the movies when the first film was released.I waited in antisipation of the new films and am thinking how they compare to the earlier versions.
To me they are abot 50% as good.Any thoughts???
Regrads,
Ian.
Follow Ups:
Yoda and Christopher Lee swordfight was pretty cool -
good to finally see Yoda as more than a somnabulent pseudo-sage
with oblique prounouncments.But, 2+ hours for a two-minute swordfight? Too high a price.
There are some good movies and a lot of bad ones. Though I would not compare "SW" with say "Casablanca", I would still put them together with good ones. Just because they are uncomparably better than 95% of the shit that Hollywood produces in astonishing numbers.
The story; the script; the exigencies of CGI; the direction; the bad acting resulting probably from the the aweful lines, the bland, pre-digitized soundstages, and George Lucas, who gets smugger and more stupid every time I see him interviewed (McGregor said somewhere that his role in the prequals marked his single worst experience as an actor) . . . I think a good many of the millions of viewers who saw the prequals and thought "I could have done better" really could have done better. Of the originals, I think The Empire Strikes Back is far and away the best. No coincidence that Lucas didn't direct it.CGI is just bad--or bad on the scale on which it was used in the prequals. It's interesting to compare the differing constraints that CGI effects and the methods of the originals place on film making. CGI mainly requires long shots (or extreme light or darkness as in the Hulk) to maintain any sense of convincingness, whereas in the originals, when you have a real actor interacting with a monster or, say, when Darth Vader is pelting Luke with machinery in Empire, closeups are required to disguise the fact that only limbs or upper torsos or objects on guidewires are being employed. But the latter is still more effective because the actors are interacting with something real, something tactile. CGI should be used to augment the old methods, not as a wholesale replacement.
But not even that would have saved the prequals. They're that, will not endure, and I think dampen the potential interest in later generations in the originals.
Will you guys admit that if they weren't Star Wars films, they would stand alone as beautiful, charming, unique fantasy films?... Films that by FAR surpass all the banal crap FX movies Hollywood has been spitting out as of late? The Hulk, Matrix Reloaded, etc.
I only watched the latest one on DVD , because I passed by the house at Lake Como that was in the film.Other than that, I think The Empire Strikes back was the last decent one.
.
Or any other decent film editor...since he can't seem to tell a compelling story anymore.
The newer movies lack a dramatic effect in storytelling. This isn't the fault of the script or writing. It's the fault in the order of storytelling. A story lacks dramatic effect when you know what is the ultimate outcome. We all know what ultimately happens to the main characters (as well as their offspring) of the first 3 films. Telling a backstory just doesn't work in the drama department unless it's in a flashback form that helps advance the main story. Here, the main story has been completely told and there is nothing to advance. If I may draw a crude analagy: It is like getting a hard on immediately after having sex. The physical function is there but the excitement is lacking.Long ago, I read an article that stated there was enough material to make 9 episodes total. The original trilogy was the middle 3 episodes. I think it would have been a more exciting/dramatic choice to make the last 3 episodes with the original cast as it would provide a stronger nostalgic link as well as function to continue the main story arc.
Tom §.
IMO, the first two were great, and the last two were real stinkeroos...Lucas seems to be approaching Saturday morning cartoon standards. Those in the middle were good, but showed signs of what was to come...weaker and weaker story with more focus on the "big effects" scene. In the original, the effects were imaginative and skillfully done. Perhaps because now its possible to churn out that digital stuff so easily, the effects are so thick and busy that they're in the way of the movie.Its pretty clear to me that the generational shift in major studio movies is now deeply set...frantic action and gimmicky effects trump story and character depth,and imaginative cinematography is effectively gone.
100% GREAT POST.
THE DARK SIDE HAS DEFFINATLY TOOK OVER THE LUCAS HOUSEHOLD.DIJITAL SUCKS??
GIVE ME ANALOUGE AND A GOOD STORY ANYDAY.
CASHING IN'AND GIVING US NO CHANGE.
Yesss the Dark Side has taken over your spelling abilities.
First one was pretty decent, by virtue of being new and fresh therefore fun. Each followup has failed to measure up. The two
newest ones are in my opinion so bad as to be unwatchable. I went to see Phantom Menace in a theatre about 2 months after the premiere.
At 40 minutes in I couldn't believe what tripe I was watching. Here in Hollywood people camped out for weeks at Graumans Chinese to be the first to see it. I said to my wife at that 40 minute point, "Can you imagine how angry the people must be at this point in the film who slept on a sidewalk for 6 weeks"?I tried to watch Clones on cable TV just last week after skipping the theatre experience. I couldn't last 15 minutes. I would rather have watched Blind Date or Cops. George Lucas is closing in on Ed Woods territory.
Steve
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the post.
I totally agree with you,
The phantom menace was a menace all by itself.
I left the cinemas in the uk very disapointed and lett down.
The end was possibly the worst with the kid saying "uh oh" and flying a spaceship that he had no idea on controlling,I almost felt embarased'Like i was watching a childs cartoon or something.
And as for Jar Jar Binks---ME FINKS HE IZ SZTUPID BEYOND BELIEFZ.
There was some intresting concepts i thought but as per usaul they were overshadowed by computer graphics.
Lucas was once a jedi,But now i think he has lost the Force some how.
"INTO THE GRBAGE MASHER I SAY"
Thanks,
Ian.
NT!
"I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit."
nt
fx is better on the newer films but sometimes there is way too much going on. Call it overkill.the older films were better paced and more exciting. Lucas, directing Episode IV (the first made) was a much better director than he is now. This is the man who directed and wrote the classic "American Graffiti" and "THX-1138." Has he forgotten that sometimes less-is-more?
The writing in the older films was much better. Where is Lawrence Kasden when we need him?
The chemistry between the lead actors was much better in the older films.
The leads in the newer films are wooden! I blame the director as the actors (at least those with other credits) are more than adequately skilled. At least "Attack of the Clones" had Yoda and Christopher Lee to liven things up. And it had very little Jar-Jar, which is a big plus.
Still, with all their problems, I do like the new films. Are they as good as the older ones? No. Are they good enough? Certainly. Could they be better? Much more so.
My ratings of the movies thus far:
* a total waste of time
** mediocre but worth watching if nothing better comes around
*** good
**** excellent. fine entertainment
***** outstanding. nearly perfect entertainment.1. Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace ***
2. Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones **
3. Episode 4 - A New Hope *****
4. Episode 5 - The Empire Strikes Back *****
5. Episode 6 - Return of the Jedi ****
Hi,
Thanks for the post Danj.
A very good dscription.I also think that Lucas held a different perspective on movie making in the early days and "LESS IS MORE" is absolutely true.
I think a lot of the first films success was that they left you yo use your own imagination,much like reading a book-your own perspective was used.Whearas in the recent films this has been filled in with special effects and computer graphics.
The new films i think are enjoyable but i dont seem to get engrosed with them like the first ones.Also people say that its beacuse times have changed and so has the audience---This i totally disagree with.
I think the latest film did have some key majik moments including the aliens on the water planet and fight in the desert pit.Then again the use of cji was evident almost everywhere.With cji dijital animation i think it looks unatural and moves smoother than in real life.
Also the humour element in the phantom menace was a bad move.
The title "phantom menace"--what does it relate to?There was hardly a menace at all untill the films climax,Shurely Darth maul could have been shown displaying his fighting abiltys in the mos eisley canteen or something.All we were treated to was a quick battle on the desert untill the end?I think that"the less is more" perspective should have been used and a more intimate explanation of how the force came about in the first place.The p menace looks like it ocured after Jedi,Instead of before it.?
The martial arts aspect was one area that i did think was good,It could have been pushed further still.
I think Lucas has changed his movie making perspective and has let the marketplace dictate the outcome instead of "simple craetivity"."THE FORCE WILL BE WITH YOU"(almost)ALWAYS.
IAN.
nt
"I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit."
and one of the best SF films to come out of the USA, it owes a lot to Fritz Langs Metropolis, but is different enough to be interesting and was ahead of its time when released
I've always thought the simple, effective ending really made this
film
Eric
Hi Eric,
I also have this film on Good old Laserdisk.
The concept,Like you say is way ahead of the rubbish today.Would make a great terminator 4 script????
Thanks,
Ian.
as the basis for a T-4 script, not a high enough body count or quite enough explosions to keep an audience awake(!)
Soylent Green, Logans Run or Westworld remakes might fit the bill
Or the UK classic "the Space Vampires" aka "Life Force" based on a Colin Wilson yarn... same era, all very very "B"
Love 'em
Eric
Tokyo
nt
nt
I feel like we are piling up on a poor guy, but I recall the early screening of the last (I hope!) ditigal version, don't recall the title of it, just that Natalie was there... I had to go see it because it was during the High-End show days and it was group event... clark was also rounded and sat in the same row, I believe, also moving his legs restlessly, or just pretending, I don't know... anyway, boring would not describe that waste of time, but I had to wait for my "group" to be done, as we traveled in pack for courtesy sake, amazinly after the "film" was over I heard everyone talk about image quality - that was the BIG first digital, as I said, and I don't recall anyone making any comments on the film content, acting, directing, whatever we tend to associate with movie making.Was it the worst ever put on film? I doubt it, there are some VERY strong contenders for that title!
Lots of attention paid to "sets" - "venues".Writing sucked - horrible dialog - especially the "love interest".
Directing was mediocre.
Brought the kids - couldn't wait for it to end.
And, is it me, or does that digital film look grainy to you, too?
Analog noise and film grain...are we missing something ?
Today it is more convenience that real quality.
Films ala Star wars are not picture in our given sense.
We are getting old, I do suppose.
Or the stone age.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
