Chefelf.com Night Life: Is the original Star Wars responsible for... - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Star Wars Fan Convention

Page 1 of 1

Is the original Star Wars responsible for... wrecking cinema as we know or knew it?

#1 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 July 2005 - 10:28 PM

Some blame the current state of movies on the original Star Wars trilogy (1977-1983), claiming the old SW forever turned Hollywood off to making "good movies". Does anyone here feel that claim is justified or is Star Wars taking far too much blame for something that was probably inevitable?
I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#2 User is offline   diligent_d Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 16-May 05
  • Country:Canada

Posted 23 July 2005 - 11:45 PM

I've heard it was a combination of Star Wars and Jaws.
0

#3 User is offline   Revan-47 Icon

  • The Prophet
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 1,276
  • Joined: 09-June 05
  • Location:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:02 AM

Thats putting it a little harsh.
"Life is too important to be taken seriously."
0

#4 User is offline   SithAvenger Icon

  • Wow, my avatar changed.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,898
  • Joined: 06-June 05
  • Location:Err... here I guess.
  • Interests:The Interests of a Normal Teenager:<br />-Movies<br />-Things that are awesome<br />-Girls<br />-(Good) Tv shows<br />-Doing evil stuff the good way<br />-Videogames<br />-Hangin' with my friends
  • Country:Mexico

Posted 24 July 2005 - 05:32 AM

Nah. Remakes is the threat that is contaminating the movie screens all over the world.

And at least SW and Jaws were good movies.
Sorry, you won't be seeing a smartass sig here. Try with the next poster.
0

#5 User is offline   Otal Nimrodi Icon

  • Miracle Ghost
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,442
  • Joined: 26-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I like my my little pony characters like I like my suspected criminals. Mirandized.
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 July 2005 - 11:31 AM

I've never seen Jaws, but I want to. I'm already have aquaphobia, so...
Want a Tarot reading?

PM me, we'll talk.
0

#6 User is offline   xenduck Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 328
  • Joined: 01-March 05
  • Location:Far, Far Away
  • Interests:to inspire you vast and cool intellects to regard Star Wars with more sympathetic eyes.
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 July 2005 - 03:20 PM

ive not heard that before. how has star wars or jaws supposedly done this?
Officer! officer! quick! all my money was stolen by a man in flannel!
0

#7 User is offline   jerfus17 Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:VA
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 July 2005 - 06:33 PM

QUOTE (Lord Aquaman @ Jul 23 2005, 11:28 PM)
Some blame the current state of movies on the original Star Wars trilogy (1977-1983), claiming the old SW forever turned Hollywood off to making "good movies". Does anyone here feel that claim is justified or is Star Wars taking far too much blame for something that was probably inevitable?



I wouldn't say it was Star Wars (the originals at least) or Jaws that messed up movies, I think it really started with Jurassic Park. The main thing that is making lots of people sick of movies these days does come from Lucas and Speilberg though, and that thing is - COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGES, or CGI. And we all know, Jurassic Park was the big debut for CGI. Ever since then, almost every action/sci-fi movie released has been filled to the brim with as much computer generated imagery as possible.

George Lucas once said, and I quote -
"A special effect without a story behind it is just AIR, it has no purporse or meaning" - can anyone say hypocrite? yell.gif

The bottom line is Hollywood doesn't care about making movies with good storylines and dialogue anymore! People like Lucas and Speilberg just want to fill the screen with as much Computer Generated Effects as possible in the hopes of dazzling the pre-teen video game crowds into paying to see the movies over and over again (how do you think Phantom Menace made so much money? Jar Jar Binks' wonderful antics? Jake Lloyd's brilliant acting?). They think as long as they plaster huge amounts of special effects all over everything they do that people won't notice or care if the story is bad, or the dialogue sucks, or prequels don't match up with originals.

It's a real shame. The thing that made the Original Star Wars Trilogy in particular (not the Special Editons) so great, was that it was a good story and the focus was on the characters and their motivations; not on how many spaceships they could digitally fit on the screen at one time or how many QUADRUPLE back-flips a CGI Yoda can do.

CGI is a great tool, but only if isn't over-used; and unfortunately for lots of potentially great movies, CGI is OVER-USED and ABUSED to the max!

Hollywood is getting a backlash from audiences though. Recent reports say that over the past 3 years, the movie industry has lost a lot more money than it has earned. ph34r.gif
- helping to bring down the Lucas empire ... one post at a time.
0

#8 User is offline   julie123 Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 25-May 05
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 25 July 2005 - 11:09 AM

John Boorman said in a recent interview that he gave Melvin Bragg, on "The South Bank Show", that he wanted to talk to both Lucas and Speilberg because as far as he is concerned, both killed off intelligent film making.

I tend to agree with Boorman
0

#9 User is offline   Dorothy Icon

  • We supply it, we demand you eat it.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,604
  • Joined: 17-May 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Seattle.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 25 July 2005 - 11:16 AM

I dunno...I think that blame should be placed squarely on Disney's shoulders, because they were some of the first to use CGI to "enhance" their animated films, which really wasn't needed, just a shortcut to satiate their fanbase's hunger for technology... maybe.
"The problem is, you're not a kangaroo... that's a bear... and he's in your pants."
"Maybe artists shouldn't talk about their art."
"Well kids, I guess your father isn't a hermaphrodite."
"Izzy! enough with the rabid smootching!!"
0

#10 User is offline   jerfus17 Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:VA
  • Country:United States

Posted 25 July 2005 - 03:44 PM

QUOTE (Dorothy @ Jul 25 2005, 12:16 PM)
I dunno...I think that blame should be placed squarely on Disney's shoulders, because they were some of the first to use CGI to "enhance" their animated films, which really wasn't needed, just a shortcut to satiate their fanbase's hunger for technology... maybe.


Good point Dorothy, Disney and Pixar were some of the first as well.

But, when I watch cartoons with CGI in them it doesn't bother me that much because it looks cartoony and fits. I think when I watch something like Star Wars with CGI in it it bothers me because of the same reason - it looks cartoony, but now it does not fit.

I just think they still have a long way to go with the technology before they can really start making CGI look completely realistic - the good news is it can only get better, too bad Star Wars had to suffer through the initial stages of it.
- helping to bring down the Lucas empire ... one post at a time.
0

#11 User is offline   Dorothy Icon

  • We supply it, we demand you eat it.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,604
  • Joined: 17-May 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Seattle.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 25 July 2005 - 04:05 PM

QUOTE (jerfus17 @ Jul 25 2005, 02:44 PM)
I just think they still have a long way to go with the technology before they can really start making CGI look completely realistic - the good news is it can only get better, too bad Star Wars had to suffer through the initial stages of it.


You know, I read an article once about how the more human-like a thing looks, the more it just creeps people out. As I recall, it was talking about robotics, and carried the idea over to gaming, but the same priciple would be true. I imagine that if they could really create life-like CGI, a lot of people would be really impressed, but a lot would just think it was creepy. I'll have to see if I can find that article.

It probably wouldn't hurt to have non-human thingies looking more "real," though. But I don't know if the improvement of this technology will help cinema in general. Good CGI may not be able to replace/enhance poor acting.
"The problem is, you're not a kangaroo... that's a bear... and he's in your pants."
"Maybe artists shouldn't talk about their art."
"Well kids, I guess your father isn't a hermaphrodite."
"Izzy! enough with the rabid smootching!!"
0

#12 User is offline   jerfus17 Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:VA
  • Country:United States

Posted 26 July 2005 - 04:58 PM

It probably wouldn't hurt to have non-human thingies looking more "real," though. But I don't know if the improvement of this technology will help cinema in general. Good CGI may not be able to replace/enhance poor acting.

[/quote]

Right, it will never make up for poor acting or poor script writing, very true. But that is why movies are really starting to suck these days - becuase directors/producers think that as long as they fill the screens with loads of CGI and special effects wizardry, that no one will notice the bad dialogue, acting or storyline.

They awed us all with Jurassic Park which set the trend for the great effects/bad acting movie-making style. But that was a decade ago, everyone is so used to CGI now that the majority of people are no longer impressed by the visuals alone -more substance is required to entertain anyone over the age of 5.
- helping to bring down the Lucas empire ... one post at a time.
0

#13 User is offline   Dorothy Icon

  • We supply it, we demand you eat it.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,604
  • Joined: 17-May 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Seattle.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 26 July 2005 - 05:09 PM

I think that Jurassic Park had four things going for it:

1. Great effects.
2. A good book that sold well by an established author
3. A few charismatic actors carrying the bulk of the "acting load (i.e. J. Goldblum as Ian Malcolm, .... .... Maybe Sam Niell?)."
4. It was rated PG-13 which meant that all the younglings could go and see it.

But now we have things like Sky Captain, Darkness Falls (huh.gif laugh.gif) and a lot of the other movies that are heavy on effects, and light on acting, with no charismatic or compelling characters at all.

This post has been edited by Dorothy: 26 July 2005 - 05:11 PM

"The problem is, you're not a kangaroo... that's a bear... and he's in your pants."
"Maybe artists shouldn't talk about their art."
"Well kids, I guess your father isn't a hermaphrodite."
"Izzy! enough with the rabid smootching!!"
0

#14 User is offline   xenduck Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 328
  • Joined: 01-March 05
  • Location:Far, Far Away
  • Interests:to inspire you vast and cool intellects to regard Star Wars with more sympathetic eyes.
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 July 2005 - 01:28 PM

keep in mind that back in '77 ep IV was on the cutting-edge of technology. how many times have you seen or read an interview that glorifies the opening sequence, with the star destroyer over head? lucas was doing the best he could with what he had, same as now. the difference is that '77 was the age of 'talking head' cinema; of dreary, down-beat drama. now, people are utterly desensetized to visual effects, (thanks largely to the above mentioned movies); thus rendering the effects not so special. in many ways the OT is superior to the PT (plot, character development, dialouge) but the prequals are still damn-good movies.

This post has been edited by xenduck: 27 July 2005 - 01:33 PM

Officer! officer! quick! all my money was stolen by a man in flannel!
0

#15 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 July 2005 - 12:39 AM

Dorothy's right. When Disney had that CGI lion/cave in Aladdin, we really knew what we saw was somehow WRONg.

The JP dinosaurs were great. I saw that film in the theatre probably six times, my last real repeat-view. Well, Best in Show for five.

But the previews for Jumanji showed a terrifying and lower standard was about to be released.
No turning back, no turning back.
0

Page 1 of 1


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size