OT: Why clone wars?
dws...@verizon.net
about the less likable and less interesting charecters from movies
1-3 rather than the much beloved charecters of movies 4-6? The age of
the actors is not an issue in animation and even the voices could be
faked if harrison Ford is to expensive now that he can acutally act.
Maybe I'm just getting old and the rest of the world thinks Aniken and
Padme are the best but I just don't see it.
William
Sean
Graffiti and Star Wars. After that it was all down hill. As anti-
Hollywood as he was, he' surrounded himself with yes-men who are just
as bad, just as uncreative as the hacks working at the major studios.
Sure, special effects look cool (sometimes). But that ain't a story.
Sean
Tanker
Tanker
> > William- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
paul.nor...@gmail.com
Clones kick ass!
Tanker
On Aug 9, 1:23 pm, paul.nordstrom...@gmail.com wrote:
> Clones kick ass!
Sean
Speilberg was a great director. Jaws was probably the perfect film in
many regards. But he's lost it too, like Lucas. I haven't seen a
palatable Speilberg film since Shindler's List (and that stood out as
being a gem among recent crappy attempts).
Sean
wessd
<m1a1t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Wow...here I was thinking Speilberg was a great director....
>
>
>
>Tanker
>
Worse than that, Raiders is a Lucas idea too.
But I guess Raiders isn't a good movie, huh, Sean? Or how bout THX?
No? Damn that one hit wonder Lucas.
WessD
wessd
<SuperTh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>?
>Speilberg was a great director. Jaws was probably the perfect film in
>many regards. But he's lost it too, like Lucas. I haven't seen a
>palatable Speilberg film since Shindler's List (and that stood out as
>being a gem among recent crappy attempts).
>
>Sean
>
Good god Sean.....you have no taste....
I mean even 1941 is not a horrible movie.
Steven S has one big problem, that I never noticed until MST3K pointed
it out with Jurassic Park.
2 words.
People looking.
Yup. you wanna copy a speilberg movie, just have all your actors stare
off into the distance umpteen times a movie.
Just you better deliver the goods when you show what they are looking
at.
WessD
TheARROW
> ?
> Speilberg was a great director. Jaws was probably the perfect film in
> many regards. But he's lost it too, like Lucas. I haven't seen a
> palatable Speilberg film since Shindler's List (and that stood out as
> being a gem among recent crappy attempts).
>
> Sean
Lucas is probably the most successful film student in history.
He's technically accomplished, but .......amazingly, he's still
learning his craft.
He's directed less than 10 films in his life, despite a nearly 40 year
career in the industry. He cannot direct actors to save his life.
You could lump him in with Kevin Smith, who is another filmmaker who
tends to stay within a defined arena.
There's a reason Smith talks alot about being offered other film
projects, but its glaring how he never seems to sit down to sign on
anything but his "View Askew"-type projects. LIke Lucas, he's pigeon-
holed himself into working in a narrow genre.
Spielberg, I put in a different class.........I used to consider him a
hack, but then I've come to see his movies and works in a different
light. He is a consummate filmmaker and storyteller, perhaps in the
truest sense. He sticks with simple ideas and sound cinematic
technique......and it works.
I was watching War of the Worlds again this week(amongst several of
his films), and I'm still amazed at the shot of the Ferrier family in
the van, as they escape the destruction that destroys their community.
The camera rotates around the van several times AS THEY ARE TRAVELLING
DOWN THE HIGHWAY--a very polished continuous shot that just piles on
the tension and drama for that scene. Seeing it again, made me wonder
just how they pulled it off, because the van is weaving in and out of
stalled traffic around it.
Saving Private Ryan is another masterful film, quite possibly the
quintessential war movie, perhaps the greatest ever made. There's so
many different elements and aspects woven in and around the
characters, courage, cowardice, sacrifice, redemption,
compassion......and yet none of the near-superhuman flamboyance of
other war films.
Spielberg understand the beats of a story very well, and can take
something simple, like War of the Worlds and make it interesting, even
though the story is already well known.
We know in advance that germs and bacteria defeat the aliens, but the
surprise comes in using birds to reveal that the tripod's shields are
down and thus open to attack. This way the characters drive the
revelation ( by noticing it) rather than the machines just all of a
sudden collapsing.
Spielberg also weaves a "mirror" motive through the film, that offers
some deeper interpretations of the story.
I'm not saying that he can do not wrong.......<cough 1941!! cough> but
he's pretty darn good most of the time. ( Actually, I still feel to
this day that Spielberg's unbridled masterpiece is Close Encounters of
the Third Kind!)
Lucas, on the other hand..........still has to prove himself, imo.
wessd
Got a problem? Send in the clones!!!
WessD
GIAction
ike
The Buffalo Soldier
"If they are going to make an animated Star Wars feature why do a
story about the less likable and less interesting charecters from
movies 1-3 rather than the much beloved charecters of movies 4-6?"
The story of the characters in movies 4-6 is essentially done,
although I'm betting that we may see something of a few of them in the
upcoming live action TV series which is set between Episodes 3 and 4,
and shows the formation of the Rebellion prior to Luke Skywalker's
involvement.
The reason that Clone Wars got a feature film is because of the huge
success of the Genndy Tartakovsky Clone Wars cartoon series which ran
on cartoon network... that was brilliant and very well received by a
lot of Star Wars fans, young and old alike. Unfortunately this new
feature film is not the made by the same animation team nor is it the
same animation style, so I don't expect it will live up to the quality
of the Clone Wars TV series.
dws...@verizon.net
wrote:
But the Clone War is done too, isn't it? We know how it will turn out
from "Revenge of the Sith". Dozens of stories about Luke, Leah, Han
etc. were were written in Star Wars novels that cover time before,
after, and between the films. Why not an animated feature with a
similar storyline?
William
C.Martin
Darth Vader is clearly the coolest guy in the whole Star Wars storyline-
from a kids' point of view anyway. By setting the story in Clone Wars, you
get kids idolizing the good guy, instead the horrible, indescribably evil,
child-killing Darth Vader. And you get to sell all kinds of Clone Trooper
action figures and vehicles.
Face it, Anakin is like a superhero in the Clone Wars- his powers far beyond
anyone else's. Plus, he starts the story as a kid- letting children
empathize with him more. Marketing genius in my opinion.
C.
TheARROW
> If they wanted to retire tomorrow, Lucas & Spielberg would never have to work another day.
>
> ike
Heh, both men's great-great grand-kids will never have to work given
the money they have made.....
Lucas' legacy will not actually be the films he's made, but rather the
cinematic technologies he's helped develop and explore. He's not been
sitting idle all these years, waiting for ideas to strike, he's spent
countless millions developing various tools and techniques to aid
other filmmakers--many of which have made many movies from the last 20
years possible.
One big example is the whole digital process of film-making, which has
opened up the process of making movies. No longer is a director forced
to "get it in the can", when he can shoot elements at different time
and composite them digital with relative ease. It also means for a
richer degree of storytelling is possible, and films with a greater
range of scope to them.
Sean
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT), Tanker
>
> >Wow...here I was thinking Speilberg was a great director....
>
> >Tanker
>
> Worse than that, Raiders is a Lucas idea too.
> But I guess Raiders isn't a good movie, huh, Sean? Or how bout THX?
> No? Damn that one hit wonder Lucas.
Lucas didn't direct Raiders. And THX was an OK idea but wasn't great
(and was early in his career).
Raiders was a good film. Lucas has some good ideas, but as a director
his films are getting worse and worse.
And Speilberg did do some good films,too. Close Encounters, Jaws, even
his days doing TV movies like Duel showed some talent.
>Good god Sean.....you have no taste....
Huh? Because I think many Lucas films suck, I have no taste? Sorry but
the new Star Wars flicks were not up to the earlier films at all. And
because Speilberg started relying on flash rather than story telling,
I have no taste? Yeah, War of the Worlds was a great film wasn't it?
(sarcasm). Great character development there. I'll take the original
War of the Worlds any day.
>I mean even 1941 is not a horrible movie.
That film was very flawed, but still kinda stupidly funny, thanks to
the performances. But that was quite a while ago, not recent as I was
referring to.
>Steven S has one big problem, that I never noticed until MST3K pointed
>it out with Jurassic Park.
>2 words.
>People looking.
>Yup. you wanna copy a speilberg movie, just have all your actors stare
>off into the distance umpteen times a movie.
Yeah. Thanks for making my case for me.
Sean
Rudy Panucci
>
> I mean even 1941 is not a horrible movie.
No Wess, 1941 IS a horrible movie. Speilberg should never be allowed
within a hunded miles of comedy. Anybody who can make a film that bad
when they have John Candy, Dan Ackroyd, John Belushi and so many other
great comic actors at hand should stick to drama/action/sci-fi and war.
Saving Private Ryan was funnier than 1941.
--
Later, Rudy
Visit POPCult at http://www.thegazz.com/gblogs/popcult
NON SPORT UPDATE http://www.nonsportupdate.com/
Sean
moves, effects, (like the one you refer to in War of the Worlds) etc,
make a film. A film should be about story telling. Speilberg lost that
ability long ago. I love his directing style (being a big Hitchcock
fan myself) but you still need a story.
The problem these days, with even directors like Lucas and Speilberg,
is that they think you can make a film based on effects, a certain
scene, a gag, a tag line, etc. This is the mentality of Hollywood now-
you need one gimmick and that's it. Too often now films are made for
an audience with no attention span and who need ever-amped up effects
and visual distraction/noise to make them think they have seen
something worthwhile. The thing that is often universally absent
however is a story and/or the ability to tell it.
Having said that I do watch Speilberg's WotW when on cable because I
love how parts of it look. Like when the machines first comes out of
the ground and the shot where it's behind some tree branches and sort
of getting it's balance, etc. The horn sounds they make, the dirt and
stuff falling from them, that was awesome in the theater on the big
screen. The typical Speilberg visual moment of the Hummers driving
back over the hill on fire was also cool. These scenes gave me chills
when I first saw the film in the theater. But that's music video level
direction (when you rely on images alone). It's not story telling. The
rest of the filmed failed miserably to engage me in any way, or tell a
worthwhile story.
Sean
dws...@verizon.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree that not all Speilberg films are good (Hook is my usual
example of a Speilberg disaster) but you can't say that a movie like
Amistad is not good story telling. Although I admit I can't think
offhand of a more recent Speilberg film that was done as well.
William
Sean
> I agree that not all Speilberg films are good (Hook is my usual
> example of a Speilberg disaster) but you can't say that a movie like
> Amistad is not good story telling. Although I admit I can't think
> offhand of a more recent Speilberg film that was done as well.
> William
Of course, he has some good and effective films (usually older work).
But there are plenty of Speilberg missteps (mostly later work, though
yeah, 1941 is an example of an earlier misstep, though it had limited
charm- I guess growing up on Abbot and Costello WWII type comedies
they hold a soft spot in my heart, though as an adult I really can't
watch the film. The soundtrack was pretty decent too. Swing Swing
Swing was a great song).
Sean
paul.nor...@gmail.com
just like any WWII story- The characters can be new but you know the
context of the story and don't have to be developed as much. The
Stars Wars films were normally about specific characters.
wessd
>
>>Good god Sean.....you have no taste....
>
>Huh? Because I think many Lucas films suck, I have no taste? Sorry but
>the new Star Wars flicks were not up to the earlier films at all. And
>because Speilberg started relying on flash rather than story telling,
>I have no taste? Yeah, War of the Worlds was a great film wasn't it?
>(sarcasm). Great character development there. I'll take the original
>War of the Worlds any day.
>
Not just cause of Lucas, but because of SS.
And so what ,if GL never made another film again, he still
made American Graffiti....
And Star Wars.
And created Raiders.
>>I mean even 1941 is not a horrible movie.
>
>That film was very flawed, but still kinda stupidly funny, thanks to
>the performances. But that was quite a while ago, not recent as I was
>referring to.
>
I didn't say it wasn't flawed.
But Hell, you want great films EVERY time someone makes a film?
Orson Wells couldn't do it. Terrence Malick (Thin Red Line) can't do
it. M. Knight shamalot can't do it. SS can't do it.
So far, on Pixar and John Lasseter have been hitting them out of the
park consistantly.
>>Steven S has one big problem, that I never noticed until MST3K pointed
>>it out with Jurassic Park.
>>2 words.
>>People looking.
>>Yup. you wanna copy a speilberg movie, just have all your actors stare
>>off into the distance umpteen times a movie.
>
>Yeah. Thanks for making my case for me.
>
>Sean
Hmmm....Jaws. Private Ryan, Raiders. CE3K,JP,SL
Lots of peeps looking.
Lots of stuff to look at. Great movies. Insanely popular movie.
So tell me Sean.
What great movie lurks inside you and when will we see it?
Or failing that, what advice can you give Steve and George?
WessD
wessd
>I'm not saying that he can do not wrong.......<cough 1941!! cough> but
>he's pretty darn good most of the time. ( Actually, I still feel to
>this day that Spielberg's unbridled masterpiece is Close Encounters of
>the Third Kind!)
>Lucas, on the other hand..........still has to prove himself, imo.
HUH? PROVE HIMSELF TO YOU?
Damn, you're almost as bad a SEAN.
What's next FFC hasn't made a good movie?
John Landis?
Woody Allen?
WessD
Sean
asked why Lucas decided to do Clone Wars. And all I said was that
while Lucas had some good films, all of his later films aren't
anywhere near as good as his earlier work (and he wasn't a prolific
film maker). Who can argue with me on that? The same with Speilberg.
He's had some great films, but some god awful crap in t e past 2
decades (with a couple of exceptions). This is just about inarguable
(you can never compare Jaws to SS's War of the Worlds for example, or
that other terrible Tom Hanks film).
I never expected a director to make a great film every time. However
with the budgets, talent and stories they have to choose from, a
talented director should be able to make a great film. Why did SS fail
so miserably with War of the Worlds, for example? Christ, the money
that cost, the talent involved, that could have been a very good film.
I know people who worked on that film. They all complained that no one
even tried. I worked in film for years here in Los Angeles, I went to
film school for years, and have been close to the industry for 20
years- so I do some some experience and inside info here.
M Night Shyamalan desperately wants to be Hitchcock, but he doesn't
have the sensibility to chose/write/modify good stories (and not all
Hitchcock films were great either- but he did make GREAT films).
Shyamalan had 2 ok films in him so far (Unbreakable and 6th Sense)
though both borrowed heavily from old Twilight Zone and Outer Limits
episodes, but both were predictable and not briliantly executed. Even
so, he was able to make 2 somewhat decent films with those scripts.
The majority of his following films were beyond flawed and, IMO,
outright horrible. If I had to sit through Lady in the Water in the
theater I'd probably have walked out. I walked out of that alien
invasion film in disbelief at how utterly stupid and a waste of time
it was. It's like another guy made those films.
When you can't even make an empty action film fun (like Speilberg
failed with in War of the Worlds) then you know they just aren't
trying anymore. Shyamalan is just exploiting the big plot twist, one
trick pony. He has to have the Twilight Zone moment in each film, the
story, execution and character development doesn't seem to matter.
Lucas is milking Star Wars (though he has his had in developing
technologies [sound, effects, etc], as was stated earlier, which is
cool). While I do think these guys ARE capable of more, they aren't
showing it. Perhaps they lost the hunger.
And John Landis? Oh come on, he had very few decent films in him! And
I KNOW the guy!
Look, all I'm saying is that these guys should be cranking out amazing
shit with the budgets and available talent. I know how these guys
work. In fact I've worked with them! I was even IN a Speilberg
production myself. I see how, for the sake of timing, commercial
success, teen appeal, etc, stories get purposely diluted, good ideas
are discarded for the sake of making a dollar and due to corporate
pressure, etc. These guys are powerful enough not to have to bow to
corporate or studio pressure, yet they do for the sake of making a
buck (or their judgement is WAYYYY off- I mean, why include Jar Jar
Binks? Why ruin War of the Worlds? Etc... These guys have made bone
head moves. That's all I'm saying).
Sean
Sean
> Jeez, hostile much? All I did was respond to a post where someone
> asked why Lucas decided to do Clone Wars. And all I said was that
> while Lucas had some good films, all of his later films aren't
> anywhere near as good as his earlier work (and he wasn't a prolific
> film maker). Who can argue with me on that? The same with Speilberg.
> He's had some great films, but some god awful crap in t e past 2
> decades (with a couple of exceptions). This is just about inarguable
> (you can never compare Jaws to SS's War of the Worlds for example, or
> that other terrible Tom Hanks film).
Sorry, I meant Tom Cruise film, not Tam Hanks.
Sean
The Buffalo Soldier
"But the Clone War is done too, isn't it?"
Not exactly. There are still some gaps in the story which can be
covered, for example how Anakin got the scar on his face was not
explained in the TV series, he just shows up with it... so there are
obviously stories within the Clone Wars time period which can be
further explored.
On Aug 10, 8:21 pm, dwso...@verizon.net wrote:
"Dozens of stories about Luke, Leah, Han etc. were written in Star
Wars novels that cover time before, after, and between the films. Why
not an animated feature with a similar storyline?"
They may do that at some point in the future, but the Clone Wars movie
was of a more immediate interest to the fans of the Prequels and the
Clone Wars TV series. I'm guessing that the live action TV series
which is in the works will appeal more to fans of the original trilogy.
ARROW
Yes Wess, he has to prove himself to me.
I've storyboarded on about 100 films ( actually TV animation), so I
understand what's being called for with the material and can say, with
authority, that.......YES, I feel that Lucas still needs to prove
himself as a director and a storyteller.
23+ years in the biz let's me say that.
Do you know enough to tell me otherwise?
Rudy Panucci
Warner Brothers instead of Fox. I'm guessing that has something to do
with the cartoon being on Cartoon Network, but it also might mean that
this is animated just to get around a contractual loophole.
Can't really get into the debate over the merits of Lucas. I gave up on
him for good back at Howard The Duck.
wessd
<rud...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>The thing that interests me is the fact that this is coming out from
>Warner Brothers instead of Fox. I'm guessing that has something to do
>with the cartoon being on Cartoon Network, but it also might mean that
>this is animated just to get around a contractual loophole.
>
>Can't really get into the debate over the merits of Lucas. I gave up on
>him for good back at Howard The Duck.
ok, howard really did suck.....
There's a movie that needs to be remade.
Effects being what they were then and being what they are
now.....could work...
WessD
wessd
>I've storyboarded on about 100 films ( actually TV animation), so I
>understand what's being called for with the material and can say, with
>authority, that.......YES, I feel that Lucas still needs to prove
>himself as a director and a storyteller.
>23+ years in the biz let's me say that.
>
And I still say, you are a damn tough critic, to call on Lucas to
prove himself to you, based on his resume.
I won't repeat his list of great films, or his bad ones.
>Do you know enough to tell me otherwise?
Lucas hires people like you.
People like you and I don't hire him.
What's your American Graffiti ?
Hell, where's your 1941?
WessD
Rudy Panucci
>
> ok, howard really did suck.....
> There's a movie that needs to be remade.
> Effects being what they were then and being what they are
> now.....could work...
>
If they didn't go back to the original design, instead of putting pants
on him, and go CGI instead of with a midget in a suit, then it'd just be
a way to get Steve Gerber to spin in his grave.
Some comic books are better off left in their native medium.
Tanker
third time....and so on....Howard the Duck CANNOT be remade by anyone
anywhere, anyhow...it was stupid. It's right up there with "Send in
The Tanks!"...and the space herpie...
remake Howard the Duck....ROTFLMAO
Tanker
On Aug 12, 6:27 am, wessd <wessdani...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:56:22 -0500, Rudy Panucci
>
Tanker
work and have been involved in some of his research....That being said
I can honestly say Ken has nothing to prove as I have see some of
Lucas' artwork. Everyone is a critic. Oh, yeah, Spielberg did 1941 and
it was one of the few movies of its time to actually use dated
military equipment for the movie....They used a real I-Boat, a real M3
Lee, a real P-40B as well as a model (this is what caused Belushi to
delve into drugs and finally kill him)....and so on. This is where
Spielberg started his accuracy mode.
Tanker
C.Martin
"Tanker" <m1a1t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:385406f3-b518-4e97...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Remade? It sucked the first time....it will suck the second time...the
third time....and so on....Howard the Duck CANNOT be remade by anyone
anywhere, anyhow...it was stupid.
what about Favreau or Ben Stiller? I bet they could do it
wessd
<m1a1t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Remade? It sucked the first time....it will suck the second time...the
>third time....and so on....Howard the Duck CANNOT be remade by anyone
>anywhere, anyhow...it was stupid. It's right up there with "Send in
>The Tanks!"...and the space herpie...
>
>remake Howard the Duck....ROTFLMAO
>
>
>
>Tanker
By needs to be remade, I mean almost any movie gets remade lately,
movies that DO NOT need to be remade, and worse, they aren't remade
any better than they were the first time, so it was kinda tongue in
cheek.
Take Halloween, friday the 13th, TNMT, why?
I hated the comic, hated the movie more. Loved Miss Thompson though.
WessD
wessd
<m1a1t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>As a very good friend of Ken's I can honestly say that I have seen his
>work and have been involved in some of his research....That being said
>I can honestly say Ken has nothing to prove as I have see some of
>Lucas' artwork. Everyone is a critic. Oh, yeah, Spielberg did 1941 and
>it was one of the few movies of its time to actually use dated
>military equipment for the movie....They used a real I-Boat, a real M3
>Lee, a real P-40B as well as a model (this is what caused Belushi to
>delve into drugs and finally kill him)....and so on. This is where
>Spielberg started his accuracy mode.
>
>
>Tanker
>
Hey, I'm not dissin the dudes work.
Great for him, he's a story board artist.
He translates other's work. I have a close friend who has a career as
a cartoonist and comic book artist. I don't really like her stuff, but
lots of folks do. Granted it's all original stuff.
My point is this, These guys have proven themselves on their chosen
field of battle, and they may make mistakes, they tend to have done
quite well. I also add, Carpenter,Hooper,DePalma, Kubrick,Eastwood and
I could go on and on.
They all must need to be proven....they all have made bad,sucky
movies. And all are revered for movies they have made.
WessD
wessd
Or Meyers. I'm suprised also that Jim Carey hasn't made it. Hell he
made Grinch, THAT needed to be made?
HMMMM all four of them must need to prove themselves to, since they
haven't come close to SS or GL .
WessD
wessd
funny how this just cropped up.
wessd
Cody
> On Aug 10, 11:51 am, Sean <SuperThingma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Spielberg, I put in a different class.........I used to consider him a
> hack, but then I've come to see his movies and works in a different
> light. He is a consummate filmmaker and storyteller, perhaps in the
> truest sense. He sticks with simple ideas and sound cinematic
> technique......and it works.
> Spielberg understand the beats of a story very well, and can take
> something simple, like War of the Worlds and make it interesting, even
> though the story is already well known.
I had the amazing and rare opportunity to actually sit in a story
meeting with Spielberg while working on the AI video game project. At
one point, he got off on a tangent and started explaining how he
constructed a story, how he "laid the pipe" for each beat so that
NOTHING happened that didn't have a reason or explanation; how this
even extended to characterization so that anything that happened had a
reason and a proper context. It was an amazing afternoon that I wish
to heck I'd been able to record--but the lessons have influenced me
ever since.
maxmike
Gary Braswell
> wessd wrote:
>
>>
>> I mean even 1941 is not a horrible movie.
>
> No Wess, 1941 IS a horrible movie. Speilberg should never be allowed
> within a hunded miles of comedy. Anybody who can make a film that bad
> when they have John Candy, Dan Ackroyd, John Belushi and so many other
> great comic actors at hand should stick to drama/action/sci-fi and war.
>
> Saving Private Ryan was funnier than 1941.
>
>
>