George Lucas talks about Star Wars Prequel Haters

[tnaig001]

I'm 38, I grew up with Star Wars, can't remember a point of my life without it. My nieces and nephews and daughter watch Star Wars, It transcends generations. Can't really think of too many films that can do that.

what he said

 

[jinxx]

BLASPHEMY!!

Try as I might, I cannot get my kids to like the OT as much as the PT. Just a difference of opinion I guess. I could (ahem) be like someone I know who bans the Prequels from his home like the Bible in an Islamic state.

Actually, I really got into SW after seeing The Phantom Menace. Crazy, huh?

Growing up, I've never really cared for the Star Wars mythos. It was more of a generation thing for me really, coupled with cultural differences. I mean, I've seen the first trilogy(original, not the '97 re-releases) and watched the Ewoks tv-movies(I used to pretend I was Charal!) but thought nothing about until I was enthralled upon seeing Queen Amidala! I died!

 

[barbelith]

dont confuse merchandising/franchising and box office gross with the film being revolutionary

I'm not, and I'm not sure how you can make that inference from anything I wrote.

if you want to talk about influence, the year phantom menace came out, the matrix kicked its a$$

I don't recall the box office for The Matrix, but I'm reasonably sure it was smaller than The Phantom Menace. But then you're falling into the fanboy trap again, refusing to accept the film could have had any significant impact because you personally didn't like it. But you then go on to reference Return of the King, which wouldn't exist in it's eventual form were it not for the revolutionary proof of concept Jar Jar Binks was. You're confusing your preference for Gollum with the reality that Lucas paved the way. And not only there, but set extensions and "animation as reality" (see the Gungan battle climax etc). There are documentaries showing the effects teams soiling their pants at what Lucas was asking them to do, because nothing like it had even been attempted. Avatar is The Phantom Menace writ large.

but it IS revolutionary in terms of filmmaking techniques. that is a fact you cant dispute.

Sure. But it's a minor revolution. The Phantom Menace was massive, and without it Avatar wouldn't exist.

 

[Khev]

Personally I feel that the special effects in Jurassic Park were more revolutionary than both TPM and Avatar. We'd already seen a preview of Jar Jar with the CG muppets in the ROTJ:SE and the Na'vi seem to be a pretty natural evolution from Gollum, Davy Jones, and Kong.

I don't recall seeing anything before 1993 that prepared me for the jaw dropping spectacle of those dinos running around.

 

[Darth Madden]

Here is my 2 cents worth...

I don't consider myself an OT elitist. I like the prequels but they just don't mean the same thing to me. I was 7 when Star Wars came out and those are the movies I grew up with. It's me saving my birthday money to buy an x-wing fighter and my Christmas money for the 12" Stormtrooper. Its me, my brother and our friends making bases and having battles. Its us laughing at our friend when he got the "big head" Han Solo. Its me every time I was able to save up a few dollars asking my mom to take me to the store so I could buy another figure. Its me being mad that my older brother got to send away for Boba Fett and I didn't. Its me almost passing out in the theater lobby when I went to see Jedi on opening day. Its me when the plastic canopy of my x-wing melted in the sun trying to swap it out with my friends and when that didn't work having to call mine the "battle damaged" version. Its me rolling my landspeeder across the living room and over whoever dared stand in its way (parents and cats included.)

For me the OT isn't just a collection of movies its a part of my childhood that was very important and no matter how good the PT movies are or could have been they will never be able to compare to the OT in my mind.

 

[CelticPredator]

I dont like the PT because they're terrible movies. I can forget about them...however, the OT is ruined for me, due to those wreched Special Editions. Even more so with ********* Skywalker added into the end of ROTJ. Ugh.

But I digress. I really dont care much for SW any more. Its not the same. It just represents greed, and ____ty effects now.

 

[Cap'n Cook]

I don't recall seeing anything before 1993 that prepared me for the jaw dropping spectacle of those dinos running around.

True. They still impress me to this day also.

JP still looks ace.

 

[devilof76]

I don't recall seeing anything before 1993 that prepared me for the jaw dropping spectacle of those dinos running around.

But that wasn't the first time Industrial Light & Magic did something so much more amazing than the last thing they did. What made TPM special was the scale of their work. Effects were nearly the whole movie.

I don't think it would be inaccurate to say that Avatar is just completing a revolution of a cycle begun with THX-1138. At the very least, Cameron is standing on the shoulders of ILM.

I don't know what portion of that can be directly credited to Lucas.

It just represents greed, and ____ty effects now.

 

[Bamboota]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/ARfYzbNzxAU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/ARfYzbNzxAU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
This pretty much sums it up!

 

[Something Sexy]

I dont like the PT because they're terrible movies. I can forget about them...however, the OT is ruined for me, due to those wreched Special Editions. Even more so with ********* Skywalker added into the end of ROTJ. Ugh.

But I digress. I really dont care much for SW any more. Its not the same. It just represents greed, and ____ty effects now.

Really guy? I hope you don't live your entire life like that. You Hardcore OT people need to get over yourselves. Yes the OT was amazing and better the the PT. Yes the special editions were unnecessary but who fing cares the original three films are amazing and still the same. You can get the god damn original unaltered DVDs of the OT. So go buy them and Stfu. Star wars is gonna be around forever and they will always be making new stuff. You people need to relax a little more. The PT wasn't that bad and had some good story in there. Take what you can get.

 

[King Darkness]

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/ARfYzbNzxAU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>
This pretty much sums it up!

 

[Luis138]

Really guy? I hope you don't live your entire life like that. You Hardcore OT people need to get over yourselves. Yes the OT was amazing and better the the PT. Yes the special editions were unnecessary but who fing cares the original three films are amazing and still the same. You can get the god damn original unaltered DVDs of the OT. So go buy them and Stfu. Star wars is gonna be around forever and they will always be making new stuff. You people need to relax a little more. The PT wasn't that bad and had some good story in there. Take what you can get.

Well said.

Luis

 

[Batfreak]

You probably took a wrong turn and walked into Planet 51.
Only logical explanation I can think of.

no, i just think it looks stupid. i saw the trailer and i thought it looked so silly. it looks like the prequels, way too much CGI to the point its rediculous. dont see whats so revolutionary about that. plus those blue things annoy the shat outta me.

 

[Luis138]

no, i just think it looks stupid. i saw the trailer and i thought it looked so silly. it looks like the prequels, way too much CGI to the point its rediculous. dont see whats so revolutionary about that. plus those blue things annoy the shat outta me.

So you haven't seen it?

Luis

 

[cr`]

I'm not, and I'm not sure how you can make that inference from anything I wrote.

then why brought it up? you brought up eisenstein one second, then the next second you brought up box office gross and sequels and toys. who's the confused fanboy now?

I don't recall the box office for The Matrix, but I'm reasonably sure it was smaller than The Phantom Menace.

see? you did it again. the matrix was the movie that set the standard that year, it was the one who set the trend for the next few years, not the phantom menace. nobody's talking about box office gross. stay on topic.

But then you're falling into the fanboy trap again, refusing to accept the film could have had any significant impact because you personally didn't like it. But you then go on to reference Return of the King, which wouldn't exist in it's eventual form were it not for the revolutionary proof of concept Jar Jar Binks was. You're confusing your preference for Gollum with the reality that Lucas paved the way. And not only there, but set extensions and "animation as reality" (see the Gungan battle climax etc).

never mind that cameron employed cgi in his movies way before lucas did, never mind that cgi cartoon characters(which is exactly what jar jar is - a cartoon stuck in live action movie) had been done better by pixar few years earlier(and gollum in LOTR turned it real), never mind that avatar literally advanced filmmaking fx, while phantom didn't create anything new.. never mind all that, you just believe what you want to believe, fanboy.

There are documentaries showing the effects teams soiling their pants at what Lucas was asking them to do, because nothing like it had even been attempted.

oh they soiled their pants, didnt they? talk about being gullible. no wonder you brought up lucas being a good dad in the first place.

 

[barbelith]

then why brought it up? you brought up eisenstein one second, then the next second you brought up box office gross and sequels and toys.

It was an aside. Are you familiar with those?

see? you did it again. the matrix was the movie that set the standard that year, it was the one who set the trend for the next few years, not the phantom menace. nobody's talking about box office gross. stay on topic.

Box office is important in the sense that it shows us the public response, and The Phantom Menace dominated. That means that while fanboys like yourself might have been talking about The Matrix online, the general public was buying tickets to The Phantom Menace. It's also incredibly naive to limit discussion of The Phantom Menace to the summer of 1999, because the scope of its revolutionary aspects was absolutely massive. You can't churn out a film with virtual characters in the space of a year. It's easy enough to mimic the look of The Matrix even without a budget. So we get a few years of bullet time and black leather and green tint and then everything's back to normal. We call that a fad, and sure enough The Matrix created one.

But The Phantom Menace didn't create a fad. It created a revolution in the way movies are made and the things they can do. It led to Gollum and Kong and Optimus Prime and Neytiri. It led to Sin City and 300 and Avatar. None of this could possibly have been evident in 2000 because of the timescales involved.

never mind that cameron employed cgi in his movies way before lucas did

It's not about CG. It's about the creation of a virtual character interacting with real actors, to whom the audience responds as a character instead of as an effect. That's a seismic moment in cinema.

never mind that cgi cartoon characters(which is exactly what jar jar is - a cartoon stuck in live action movie) had been done better by pixar few years earlier

Remind me which Pixar movie dropped a CG character into a "real" environment?

(and gollum in LOTR turned it real)

Gollum would have been a man in a suit if not for Jar Jar Binks serving as proof of concept.

never mind that avatar literally advanced filmmaking fx, while phantom didn't create anything new.

Eisenstein made the most revolutionary film in history without inventing any FX technology. Few of the most revolutionary films produce new technologies. Avatar presents a minor innovation in FX at best. It's The Phantom Menace writ large in a post-Coraline landscape. There's nothing in it I couldn't have seen last summer; it's just on a grander scale.

 

[Khev]

It's not about CG. It's about the creation of a virtual character interacting with real actors, to whom the audience responds as a character instead of as an effect. That's a seismic moment in cinema.

True but that certainly wasn't pioneered by TPM. Jurassic Park gave us realistic CGI characters in a live-action environment, Dragonheart gave us the first speaking CGI character in a leading role (three years before Jar Jar), and ROTJ:SE gave us the first (IIRC) humanoid English speaking CGI characters mixed with live-acton.

Avatar most certainly gave us FX that were not capable last year. The Na'vi were realized through the first "all in one" motion/performance capture system, meaning for the first time an actor's virtual facial performance was perfectly sync'd with the rest of his/her bodily movements. This was achieved with a lightweight camera attached to their shoulders and pointing at their faces while the rest of their bodily movements were recorded with more traditional motion-tracking technology--all at the same time. With all prior CG characters the animators had to take a more "cut and paste" approach to approximating facial and bodily performances that were tracked separately.

 

[barbelith]

True but that certainly wasn't pioneered by TPM. Jurassic Park gave us realistic CGI characters in a live-action environment, Dragonheart gave us the first speaking CGI character in a leading role (three years before Jar Jar), and ROTJ:SE gave us the first (IIRC) humanoid English speaking CGI characters mixed with live-acton.

Jurassic Park had no CG characters. You raise an interesting point with Dragonheart, but I think of it as a stopgap step, really. The "sell" is still the effect itself, and the audience relationship is very different for various reasons. Now to be fair I think The Phantom Menace was an accidental victor here, as Jar Jar was originally intended to be performed by a human actor.

Avatar most certainly gave us FX that were not capable last year. The Na'vi were realized through the first "all in one" motion/performance capture system, meaning for the first time an actor's virtual facial performance was perfectly sync'd with the rest of his/her bodily movements.

Right, but that's irrelevant from the cinema seat. I saw a virtual Yoda do anything the Na'vi can do, and I saw it nine years ago. You cite an improvement in the mechanics of making the film but not an advance in terms of film itself. In my opinion, obviously, but this is really just a streamlined way to present things we've all already seen. If you've seen The Phantom Menace and Coraline, you've already seen a version of everything Avatar can give you.

I don't doubt the Avatar technology will be widely adopted, but it's a filmmaking advance rather than a revolution for cinema, in my opinion. Of course, your mileage may vary.

 

[ironwez20]

Wait why do people hate these movie so much, The first one i understand cuz that was terrible, the second was boring buhe third was actually good. As for jar jar, they shoulda killed him off in the third movie.

 

[tomandshell]

Avatar uses the tools of motion capture technology to place digital characters in a convincing virtual world--and it does it very successfully. I would call it some of the best use to date of the existing tools, but it's more of an advancement of those tools than the groundbreaking creation of a brand new toolbox.

Robert Zemeckis and Peter Jackson have been doing motion capture character performances for several years now. George Lucas has been placing characters in completely digital environments for over a decade. James Cameron didn't invent these tools for Avatar, but he is certainly showing us what they are capable of producing in the hands of the right artist(s).

It's tempting to say that without the Star Wars prequels, there would be no Avatar--at least there wouldn't have been an Avatar in time for Christmas 2009.