I dont understand the hate

Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Good lord.
Yeah, typical come back. Fill everyone forum with hate about everything prequels, message after message and worship at the feet of some guy who drones on four TWO HOURS at a time about the awful prequels, but if someone dares try to provide any comebacks or explanations, they get a good lord.

LOL
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
21,646
Reaction score
0
That's probably not what his comment was about... more likely about your barrage of posts, back-to-back, as if trying to make up for only joining this month.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,978
Reaction score
133
Location
Hillsboro, IL, USA
Yeah I thought it was with Kurtz where things went sour. I think he got blamed, in part for budget issues. Didn't Lucas even invite Kasdan back for 7 himself?

And something that few seem to know is that after they tossed out much of the Brackett draft, it was Lucas who then write an entire screenplay for ESB upon which the ESB as we know it was all based. Kasdan then gave it a major polish afterwards. And repeat. Few realize that not is not true that Lucas had nothing to do with the final story for ESB, that not only did he not not have anything to do with the screenplay, but that even some decent chunks of the final exact dialogue used in the film were written by Lucas even for ESB. I mean Kersherner and Kasdan did good things too, but it's a myth that Lucas had barely anything to do with ESB at all and that it was only great because Kasdan created the entire story and screenplay 100% himself.

And I don't know where some got the impression that FOX had great control over ANH and had to constantly reign Lucas in! I mean Lucas fought tooth and nail to even get final cut, never mind have FOX micro-manage the whole thing! I mean he basically paid to make ANH/ESB mostly himself, he put his entire financial future at risk. If ANH sold like ten tickets, Lucas would've been bankrupt and out on the streets.

Anyway, not that he didn't make a few things to kiddie when he started the prequels.
I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, but none of this matches up with what I've read.

Kasdan had just written the screenplay for Raiders when he got the job to write the screenplay for ESB. Lucas hadn't even read the Raiders script when he offered Kasdan the job. I've been reading behind-the-scenes stuff about the making of the Star Wars films for decades now and I've never read anything that claims Lucas himself wrote the script for ESB or did anything more than rubberstamp a final script. Of course there have been conflicting stories about how the OT was made since 1977, so I'm not ruling it out, I would just need to see a source for that information. I have noticed a bit of revisionist history regarding the OT's creation, specifically about Lucas' involvement in the films, that's been getting more and more prominent since 1997. So I tend to assign less credibility to BTS information that has been published post 1997, especially if that information originates on the internet.

Lucas did NOT finance ANH himself. That's definitely false. It was completely financed by the studios. He did use the money he made from ANH to finance most of ESB, but still had to borrow money from the studio to complete the film. The first Star Wars film that was completely funded by Lucas was ROTJ.

Even with full studio funding of the first Star Wars film, Lucas' career would have been over if that movie had failed to make any money.
 

JVM

Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
526
Reaction score
26
Location
Illinois, USA
There's a double-sided revisionism when it comes to the movies - a lot of people either try to give Lucas complete blanket credit without really going into details, or try to pretty much find any evidence that the 'good' things about Star Wars didn't come from his head. Lucas is almost always either deified or demonized and I find it very tiring, if ironic given the nature of the series, that people seem stuck on the idea he can't be a little good and a little bad. Not to say that viewpoint doesn't exist but it's becoming rare.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
8,402
Reaction score
0
I've said it before and I'll say it agsin. In my opinion, Lucas's strengths are his ideas. His weaknesses show hen it come to conveying those ideas with actors and cameras. He's great at some things and not so great at others, like the rest of us.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
5,674
Reaction score
10
The Prequels were visually superior...
I don't know that I agree with this. Some of the OT effects are a bit dated now, but for the most part they are, at least in my opinion, more impressive than the CGI fakeness of the PT.

I'd rather see a photograph of a pretty woman than a computer generated image of a gorgeous woman.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
6,267
Reaction score
165
Location
Sacramento, CA
The Prequels were visually superior,and the Originals had my favorite characters.I'm hoping that the Sequels have a combo of both awesome characters,and top notch visuals.
The visuals felt hollow though. It never really felt like they were interacting with the CGI elements. Except of course when they over exaggerate their interaction like Obi-wan ducking under Jar Jar's ear or them walking through the membrane wall in Gungan City. Which, now that I think about it, is quite a strange name. Did the Naboo call Theed "Human City?"
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
4,893
Reaction score
2
I do not at all feel the prequels were visually impressive, im still not impressed with massive CGI. im always saying how much I like stop motion, some people may think it looks fake or is old and cheesy or something but I love it because there is an actual 3 dimensional object there. cgi still looks like cgi to me. I just feel like im watching a video game or something, my senses always say this just looks off somehow. I know it keeps improving and its the future but im still not a big fan yet, I also think its sad in a way how much artistry is being lost unless you are a computer graphics person.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Location
Ottawa ON
Wanted to chime in with my 2-cents on this one. Do I hate the prequal films; yes! Do I hate fans of the prequal films; no.

To me the CGI effects just don't cut it. I'm a creature of habbit, an old dog if you will, and you can't teach an old dog new tricks (at least not this one lol). If I wanted to watch cartoons I'd wake up early Saturday mornings; and to me that's all that CGI is...cartoons. The traditional and groundbreaking special effects of the OT are what made them so great for me. Computer animation (CGI) does not impress me personally; I recongize it as an artform in its own right and it has a place in modern cinema; however the puppets, make-up, miniatures, and models in OT is how I prefer my dose of SW.

Obviously modern films are full of CGI and Episode 7 will be CGI heavy. However; I beleive the avoidance of CGI when ever and where ever possible (exact opposite of the prequal trillogy), is what will make the sequals superior to the prequals. This may sound very silly since we are talking about Star Wars here but; the CGI in the prequals were so over-the-top it took any and all realisim away from the films for me; not only that, but the CGI is also poorly done to begin with (since I beleive the technology may still have been developing at the time)......of course the CGI is just one of the reasons for my prequal-hatred; but I will save the others for additional threads. Cheers!
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
4,577
Reaction score
1
CGI is fine in certain aspects... I thought the opening space battle in ROTS was solid and is even better when you ride Star Tours are "in" it. Same with the battle on Mustafar. But at the same time there's so much of it that seems unnecessary and looks bad on screen like why did ever single clone have to be CGI? When they walk it's with such an unnatural look to it.

There are obviously shots in the OT that you look at today and see matte lines and stuff. But those practical effects from the 70's and early 80's are, for me, awe inspiring and some, like when the first wave of TIES tear towards the rebels in ROTJ or the AT-AT's walking across Hoth are as impressive as any CGI I've seen.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
6,267
Reaction score
165
Location
Sacramento, CA
It's also frustrating when CGI, the technology that can supposedly let you do it all, can't even match a physical model used in the OT. Last I checked they still have it as reference.

I'm talking about you Tantive IV, why do you look completely different in ROTS? Engines are completely oversized, the cockpit is undersized relative to the body. The length seems close but everything else is so far off that it's hard to tell.
 
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
5
Location
Lansing, Michigan
The prequels were more visually impressive than the OT? The prequels looked fake and sterile. IMO TPM had the closest feeling to the OT than the other two because it was shot on film while the other two were digital. Plus it's unfair to say that the "The Prequels were visually superior..." because the OT was made over 30 years ago...that's just stupid to say. It was mentioned that the sequels are being shot on film so they have the similar visual style to TPM so I'm happy for that.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
4,010
Reaction score
0
Location
Northeast CT.
Gungan city is actually called Otoh Gunga, the Jedi outsiders didn't know that upon their arrival, it's a hidden city, remember.
The visuals felt hollow though. It never really felt like they were interacting with the CGI elements. Except of course when they over exaggerate their interaction like Obi-wan ducking under Jar Jar's ear or them walking through the membrane wall in Gungan City. Which, now that I think about it, is quite a strange name. Did the Naboo call Theed "Human City?"
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
5,674
Reaction score
10
Gungan city is actually called Otoh Gunga, the Jedi outsiders didn't know that upon their arrival, it's a hidden city, remember.
Little known fact: The city's name is actually just "Gunga."

See, what happened was, a long time ago the Naboo entry in the Far, Far Away edition of The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy directed tourists to popular human destinations such as Theed and Varykino, touting these locations as "beautiful, exotic, and tranquil." The same guide also included the phrase, "Otoh Gunga is a destination most sentients with refined sensibilities will want to avoid."

Unkowing tourists assumed that the name of the city was Otoh Gunga, not realizing that an unfortunate printer's error had miscapitalized OTOH - the abbreviation for "on the other hand". The error spread throughout the galaxy and despite a correction in a later edition, the name stuck.

The More You Know.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure where you are getting your facts from, but none of this matches up with what I've read.

Kasdan had just written the screenplay for Raiders when he got the job to write the screenplay for ESB. Lucas hadn't even read the Raiders script when he offered Kasdan the job. I've been reading behind-the-scenes stuff about the making of the Star Wars films for decades now and I've never read anything that claims Lucas himself wrote the script for ESB or did anything more than rubberstamp a final script.
You can't have been reading too much then! I mean you can find early draft floating around that Lucas wrote even. Just for starters check out the Rinzler "Making Of" books. There is a lot more info in addition out there.

Of course there have been conflicting stories about how the OT was made since 1977, so I'm not ruling it out, I would just need to see a source for that information. I have noticed a bit of revisionist history regarding the OT's creation, specifically about Lucas' involvement in the films, that's been getting more and more prominent since 1997. So I tend to assign less credibility to BTS information that has been published post 1997, especially if that information originates on the internet.
Most of the revisionism I see is on the net and recent and trying to make it sound like Lucas had 100% of everything to do with 1-3 which, as everyone knows were the worst movies ever and of course everyone also now knows that even #3 got 100% poor reviews from critics and that it now turns out that he had like only 3% to do with 4-6. yeah.

Lucas did NOT finance ANH himself. That's definitely false. It was completely financed by the studios.
Yeah, I guess he didn't fund most of ANH himself. I have to go re-check, but I could swear he did end up having to put some of his own money into it and something or other he had riding on it, I believe would've left him bankrupt for years and probably decades from what I recall. Maybe I had some of that mixed up with ESB, but I could swear there was something or other going on with ANH that would've meant he was finished and worse than just at getting another shot at support for another film.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,689
Reaction score
146
^^ he didn't put any of his own money into star wars. what happened was, Lucas waived his director's fee for SW in exchange for licensing rights.
the studio thought the licensing rights were worthless, so they thought it was a good deal -- it was widely reported that GL was "unpaid" / worked "for free"/ etc. :( (poor guy)

--> we all know how THAT turned out :rolleyes: :p
 
Last edited:

JVM

Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
526
Reaction score
26
Location
Illinois, USA
The effects in the prequels look fake, but I'd say it's more the artistic choices and quality than the methods used to portray them. Everything in the OT is supposed to be used and sort of damaged, whereas everything in the prequels is generally supposed to be sleek and new and elegant. Even if the PT stuff was made in the same methods as the OT, it'd still look very different and I think it'd still turn people off.

imo the worst decision in terms of digital effects was the fact physical Clone Trooper costumes weren't made by Lucasfilm first. That should've been common sense.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
21,646
Reaction score
0
Definitely agree about the clone armor. Had they built a suit and filmed & scanned someone wearing it, they might have gotten the proportions and movement of the armor and helmet more accurate. Hasbro was notorious for making the helmet-head clones look like the helmets were too small to fit an actual head, but that's partly because the film did the same damn thing, and then cheated it when armored clones appeared without helmets.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
8,402
Reaction score
0
I can see cg clones for wide shots with large groups of clones...but for shots with a few clonestroopers interacting with the cast...why wouldn't you just build a couple of suits....?!
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
6,267
Reaction score
165
Location
Sacramento, CA
They could have just filmed a handful of guys over and over again to fill out certain action scenes then spliced them together. They were already doing that with live action actors. In Episode I they were splicing different takes together to make super takes. Taking the best take from one actor and putting it in with the best take of another actor. I find it hard to believe making a few actual suits was more expensive.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
6,267
Reaction score
165
Location
Sacramento, CA
Yeah, I guess he didn't fund most of ANH himself. I have to go re-check, but I could swear he did end up having to put some of his own money into it and something or other he had riding on it, I believe would've left him bankrupt for years and probably decades from what I recall. Maybe I had some of that mixed up with ESB, but I could swear there was something or other going on with ANH that would've meant he was finished and worse than just at getting another shot at support for another film.
He didn't fund ANH himself but he did dump a lot of his own money from Graffiti into it if I remember correctly when he was going over budget. On Empire he used the money he made from ANH to finance it. Same with Jedi. Used the money from Empire. So he really wasn't making a ton of money until after Jedi. At least not off of the films themselves. Then of course he lost a lot of his Jedi money in the divorce. That's also why he was so quiet after Jedi. Star Wars had killed him and he was only so rich in the end.

One thing to note is how much people overlook the importance of Marcia, George's wife in the creation of Star Wars. Everyone likes to point to Kasdan and Kershner but Marcia had a lot of influence as well. Lucas hated how Star Wars was being edited and fired his editor. He and Marcia re-edited the whole movie. Marcia won an academy award for her work. Before she had a hand in it, the movie just didn't work. The pace, the flow, it was all off.

Mark Hamil also mentioned how much different working on Jedi was than the other two. He noticed Marcia's missing presence. How she was the only one who could stand up to him and suggest something different. By the time Jedi rolled around it was all Yes men. Yes Kasdan wrote that one as well but you can tell that the movie lacked a lot of freedom and originality. It really served to just tie up loose ends. Kasdan couldn't really do much and neither could George for that matter. It's also almost two really short movies. The whole Jabba thing then the final fight against the Empire. They are completely unrelated and don't do anything for the story. Really the only part of the story that does anything is Luke's final fight with Vader. I love the Jabba's palace stuff, it's fun. But if Star Wars really wanted to reach new heights of the hero's journey Luke should have failed at Jabba's palace. He escapes but in the end loses his friends. Or maybe one of them. It would have shown him just how arrogant he really was to skip out early on his training. His final fight would have had that much more depth and it would have turned the ending into one of those "yeah we won, but look at the cost." Actually I think this was Kasdan's original idea for the ending, Luke walking off into the sunset as the sacrifices he made for the greater good cost him everyone.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
4,010
Reaction score
0
Location
Northeast CT.
Otoh Gunga aka Gunga city, that's what I know, never came across this here nonsense... is this stuff official you're referring too?
Little known fact: The city's name is actually just "Gunga."

See, what happened was, a long time ago the Naboo entry in the Far, Far Away edition of The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy directed tourists to popular human destinations such as Theed and Varykino, touting these locations as "beautiful, exotic, and tranquil." The same guide also included the phrase, "Otoh Gunga is a destination most sentients with refined sensibilities will want to avoid."

Unkowing tourists assumed that the name of the city was Otoh Gunga, not realizing that an unfortunate printer's error had miscapitalized OTOH - the abbreviation for "on the other hand". The error spread throughout the galaxy and despite a correction in a later edition, the name stuck.

The More You Know.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
21,646
Reaction score
0
Otoh Gunga aka Gunga city, that's what I know, never came across this here nonsense... is this stuff official you're referring too?
Seems his humor went over your head, like our explanation of the proper way of quoting long ago :p
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
4,010
Reaction score
0
Location
Northeast CT.
naaaaa it didn't, man-just way too dry. But, many fans do indeed have such tales they vest in so, one never knows, esp. here.
 
Last edited:
Top