Will anyone stand up to George Lucas?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!