|
Post by Seda Navilli on Apr 9, 2006 13:11:20 GMT -5
heh i meant year 11 media class, in high school!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by tanzanlinnear on Apr 9, 2006 18:20:16 GMT -5
EHh. It's GL's baby. He can do what he wants. To be technical, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are not films that he directed. If I'd directed a film for someone, and they then re-edited it so it was different from the film I released, I would be very offended, to put it mildly. That asside, the problem is that it is precicely that attitude that allows Lucas to get away with the self-indulgent 'homages' he litters his movies with. Don't confuse the popularity of Star Wars with technical skill as a director. One does not equal the other, nor does the first require the second to occur. The fact is Lucas makes his films for no one but himself, so does whatever he wants to do. Now for clarity, what mistakes have been made? Let's see... Episode I... Obi-Wan speaks to Qui-Gon about him taking Anakin as a travelling companion. The negative has been printed backwards to ensure the actors are 'facing' each other, but it is obvious because Obi-Wan's padawan braid is coming from behind his left ear. A film student is taught how to frame a shot and position actors on their first day of studies. What excuse does Lucas have for not doing this properly? When they re-take the palace, after tossing the blaster to Panaka, Padme walks round the throne, and her foot slips out slightly on the floor. Common film practice is to shoot a 3:1 Ratio (meaning for every shot you intend to use, you film it three times (not including re-takes)) There should have been ample footage that would have enabled them to edit the movie without that mistake Episode III... As Seda pointed out, the numerous saber switches, which although wardrobe elements on set, could have been fixed digitally in post-production or re-shot. Lucas' lack of attention to detail made him miss those mistakes. Also, General Grievous was an entirely CGI character. His lightsabers had to be programmed by hand, and rather than creating digital versions of the sabers he had in Clone Wars, they create digital versions of existing prop sabers (laziness) and call it 'homage'... Humm sabre swtich problems. Well, that might not be ole' George's fault. The wardrobe and prop department have to have the cosutmes and props labeled tote correct actor and actress's. If they don't mistakes like sabres on the wrong person happen. Some directors will motice that if they're extremely involved with the costume and prop construction. Some directors don't notice until the post production, sometimes they can catch it vewiing the daylies, sometimes not . But..<big shurg> all we can do is not make the same mistake when we make movies. But the point is that Lucas is supposedly a 'veteran film maker'. He should, if not notice things like this on set, definitely notice them in the editing stage when he then views the rushes with his 'producers' hat on, but as I pointed out above, his lack of attention to detail means that things like that slip past his attention, and no one has the guts to actually point them out to him and make him alter through digital replacement or just old-fashioned re-shooting. The point is not that we can not make the same mistakes, the point is that a 'veteran director' should not even make those mistakes in the first place, and if through some fluke they do, they should realize and takes steps to correct them.
|
|
|
Post by Jauhzmynn Enz on Apr 9, 2006 23:34:33 GMT -5
Grevious was to have gotton those sabers off the Jedi he'd killed.
The mistakes you mentioned are reletivly few. I'm sure every movie we see in the theater will have at least one such goof. it happens. Goofs happen. They're making it, ot us. Enjoy the movie. Until any of us walks a few kilometers in a director's,wardrobe, propmaster, etc's shoes. we'er all gonna think it's easy to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Primrodo on Apr 9, 2006 23:42:18 GMT -5
Nah Greivous just shows that there is only a few designs of lightsabers and the EU fiction that they create their own designs is unfounded Saber switches are products of cutting and editting, same with the braid, the shot was intended to be flipped. Nitpicking teh movie based solely on continuity...you must not watch many films, continuity, no matter WHAT the movie, has issues. And the costs to reshoot something to fix it, since a small quibble, isn't fiscally sound. You want continuity issues, watch Braveheart, my favorite movie, but man it has some apparently highschool mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Seda Navilli on Apr 9, 2006 23:49:41 GMT -5
Braveheart... wasnt there a catering bus visible in one scene?
;D
|
|
|
Post by tanzanlinnear on Apr 10, 2006 4:49:01 GMT -5
Grevious was to have gotton those sabers off the Jedi he'd killed. Yes, so they should have been the sabers that he had during Clone Wars, not the ones that he had in the movies. The mistakes you mentioned are reletivly few. I'm sure every movie we see in the theater will have at least one such goof. it happens. Few they may be, but noticeable, they still are... OMG, I just 'channaled' Master Yoda... Yes, mistakes do happen, but, when a film is made with so many digital elements, it makes fixing them ludicrously easy. The fight between Obi-Wan and Grievous was simply Ewan and a guy in a green suit fighting in a blue room. Tell me, how difficult would it have been to fixed the saber mistakes during that scene? They wouldn't have even had to re-shoot! I do, but I don't have to pretend Lucas is a good director in order to enjoy it... As I said above, don't confuse how popular the product is, with the skills of the creator... Until any of us walks a few kilometers in a director's,wardrobe, propmaster, etc's shoes. we'er all gonna think it's easy to fix it. I have a degree in film-making, it's what I spent 6 years training to do, I know precicely how easy/difficult it is to make a film, especially given the technology that was still in it's infancy while I was studying. I know how easy it is to see mistakes on the rushes when you sit in front of an editing machine and have to go through it over and over, often frame by frame in places to get the timing right. When you are giving something that much attention, mistakes like the ones I pointed out are simply not acceptable, because under those conditions, they stand out a mile.
|
|
|
Post by tanzanlinnear on Apr 10, 2006 5:10:57 GMT -5
Nah Greivous just shows that there is only a few designs of lightsabers and the EU fiction that they create their own designs is unfounded There is canon evidence that they do create their own sabers. Vader to Luke in RotJ: "I see you have constructed a new lightsaber... Your skills are now complete..." Grievous had unique sabers in Clone Wars, they should simply have created digital versions for the movie version (Grievous was much more 'hardcore' in Clone Wars as well, they weakened him way too much for the movie) I know the Visual Dictionaries aren't considered Canon, but in it, Grievous is shown wielding Anakin's saber, and it is identified as 'the blade of Master Puroth'... Who was that? Why was his saber exactly like Anakin's, who made his saber himself? Saber switches are products of cutting and editting, same with the braid, the shot was intended to be flipped. But as I pointed out previously, with a film with so much digital content, that makes those mistakes all the easier to correct. What do you mean by 'the shot intended to be flipped'? I doubt it was on the shot list as "Film Ewan facing the wrong way so I can flip the negative"... Or do you mean the shot had to be flipped because Lucas never positioned the actors properly in the first place? Had he done it properly, there would have been no need to flip the frame. As I said before, film students are taught framing and position on their first day, what excuse has a 'veteran director' got for making such a stupendously simple mistake? Nitpicking teh movie based solely on continuity...you must not watch many films I not only watch plenty of movies, but I'm also qualified to make them myself. Yes, I see mistakes in plenty of movies, but never ones as obvious as the ones Lucas makes, nor are they ever ones that film students know better than to do. And the costs to reshoot something to fix it, since a small quibble, isn't fiscally sound. You must not know much about shooting schedules or finances. Any movie will have budgeted and planned for re-shoots after principle photography has finished. Lucas even said as much himself when people raised the issue of him re-shooting for TPM. Again, costs are negligable for digital correction compared to the costs of re-shooting a scene, and when a film has so much digital content, the only reason it's not done is laziness. Some mistakes (like Padme's foot slip) shouldn't even make it to the final edit, because there should be been other useable takes that could be used instead (3:1 Ratio, as I explained above) You want continuity issues, watch Braveheart, my favorite movie, but man it has some apparently highschool mistakes. Never seen it, but it wouldn't surprize me if it did. However, movie making techniques have come on quite a way since that movie was made. With the amount of, for want of a better term, 'editing equipment', that Lucas has at his disposal, there is no reason for his movies to have any mistakes in them. The ones that 'get through' are just a combination of lazi directing (by not having enough takes to not have to use a bad one) and lack of attention to detail (correcting reversed negatives or saber switches through digital means). As I've said before, these are mistakes that any film student would a) know to avoid, and b) be made to re-shoot if they turned in a project with them in. What excuse does a 'veteran director' have for making them, other than lack of skill or worse, simply not caring because he only makes the movies for himself?
|
|
|
Post by Shoshana Win on Apr 11, 2006 20:00:44 GMT -5
Just for my clarification, when you are talking about Grievous' Clone Wars lighsabers, are you refering to the Clone Wars cartoon series?
|
|
|
Post by Jauhzmynn Enz on Apr 11, 2006 20:46:20 GMT -5
Tanzan, I can understand stating opinions and stating what you've learned in film school, but you are coming off a a little abrasive. All are can voice an opinion even if it's not in accord with yours. it does NOT mean that I'm supporting GL's tactics.
|
|
|
Post by tanzanlinnear on Apr 12, 2006 10:18:42 GMT -5
Just for my clarification, when you are talking about Grievous' Clone Wars lighsabers, are you refering to the Clone Wars cartoon series? Yes, the Clone Wars cartoon series. In the episodes where Grievous first reveals himself to the Jedi, he collects a fallen Jedi's lightsaber, and when he is training with Count Dooku, one shot gives clear views of all his sabers. My opinion is that seeing as in the movie General Grievous was entirely CGI (including his lightsabers) rather than ILM creating digital versions of Anakin's and Obi-Wan's sabers (and the 'generic sabers' used Barriss and others) it would have been better (and more consistent) if they had instead, created digital versions of the sabers he had already been shown to have. I admit, one of the sabers, (which Dooku commented upon) had an S Curve emitter similar to Anakin's, but the main body of the saber was smooth, without the heavy black grips of Anakin's, so clearly a different saber, and I feel it was just lazy of them to create CGI models of existing sabers rather than create new ones.
|
|
|
Post by Seda Navilli on Apr 12, 2006 10:35:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tanzanlinnear on Apr 12, 2006 10:36:54 GMT -5
Tanzan, I can understand stating opinions and stating what you've learned in film school, but you are coming off a a little abrasive. All are can voice an opinion even if it's not in accord with yours. it does NOT mean that I'm supporting GL's tactics. If I sound abrasive, it's because as a trained film-maker, it irritates me no end that Lucas is treated like some fantastically skilled director, and people refuse to acknowledge that he isn't, just because they like Star Wars, when the facts are clearly visible that he does not have the directing skill or attention to detail that is required of film students. As I said above, when sitting in front of an editing machine for hours on end, you get to know every frame of every second of the film you are editing, and any mistake, no matter how small, suddenly becomes a glaringly obvious one, and it is incredibly easy to remove it and use another take, or if absolutely needbe, re-shoot the scene (again using the 3:1 Ratio). If I had turned in a project with a reversed negative, or with someone slipping, my tutor would have made me either re-edit that piece, or entirely re-shoot. The problem with Lucas being both director and producer, is that he cannot look at his own work with an unbiassed eye. In the editing room, when he is viewing what has been done (as a producer) he will subconsciously ignore any mistakes he made or failed to notice when directing the take, and no one else there will have the guts to standup and say "George, that's wrong, you have to re-shoot it..." It could be that as a trained film-maker, I am more aware of the processes involved so understand how a film should be made, so I find it irritating when someone does not work to those processes and guidelines yet still be praised as a great director. To show that I'm not just hating on George, I'd also like to throw Michael Mann into the mix. I loved LA Takedown, and Miami Vice was totally groundbreaking and iconic in it's time. But. I do not particularly like Heat, nor do I hold out much hope for the Miami Vice movie. Mann is a great director, but, he just re-tells the same story over and over again, and after a while, it gets tedious.
|
|
|
Post by tanzanlinnear on Apr 12, 2006 10:43:42 GMT -5
Thankyou for throwing that link into the mix, old friend Jauhzmynn, that is precicely what I was meaning when I say about viewing something frame by frame, how easy it is to spot such mistakes and why it is so irritating that Lucas does not notice them when viewing the edited rushes.
|
|
|
Post by Leda EmBorr on Apr 12, 2006 23:03:19 GMT -5
He just didn't care to fix them... no biggie. It's his movie. People will watch it regardless.
|
|
|
Post by tanzanlinnear on Apr 13, 2006 9:34:18 GMT -5
He just didn't care to fix them... no biggie. It's his movie. People will watch it regardless. But that's the problem ;D Any self-respecting director would care enough to fix them (and notice them in the first place ) ;D
|
|