Was was George Lucas REALLY up to?

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

OK, maybe this has been discussed before, but it's still something I've never really understood.

 

Despite the massive success of Star Wars IV, V & VI George Lucas seemed hell-bent on using the cruddiest equipment and sloppiest production methods for the more recent episodes I, II and now, III.

 

Episode I was originated on film, but I thought the pictures, both CGI and live action, were VERY ordinary, certainly greatly inferior to the original 70s and 80s movies. It just seemed like G.L. simply didn't care. (This is entirely apart from insisting on retaining the services of a certain Jar Jar Binks, who would have to be the lamest CGI character ever devised. He could have easily retrieved the gaffe by making him into a Jar Jar Jedi in episode II, but the character was simply fobbed off into a very minor cameo role:-)

 

I'm beginning to wonder whether this was some sort of contractual obligation that Lucas was being bound to, and he was determined to dash off the three projects with as little effort as possible. The rear-projection stuff on Episode II was abysmal, and for my money the "futuristic" street scenes were done far better on Blade Runner, a quarter of a century ago!

 

And of course, five years on, not a single feature of any significance has been shot by anybody else using video cameras, including Columbia movies like Spider-Man and the X-Men; Columbia being OWNED by Sony!

 

I've spoken to a number of people who worked on the sets of episodes II and III and they all report quietly that they had enormous exposure problems using the video cameras, although their confidentiality agreements strictly forbade them telling anyone about this at the time.

 

What the hell was Lucas thinking? Apart from the magic words "Star Wars" in the title there was nothing special at all about Star Wars II, despite Lucas's waffling about the flexibility of the video medium, and considering how long he took to make the bloody thing!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Okay, I'm never going to be an apologist for Lucas and his godawful filmmaking, but this is a bit much.

 

> cruddiest equipment and sloppiest production methods...

 

I don't see what was technically wrong with the way they shot Star Wars. HDCAM doesn't look fantastic burned out to 35mm, but it's more than good enough than the popcorn-chewers don't care. It's not cruddy.

 

> And of course, five years on, not a single feature of any significance has been shot by

> anybody else using video cameras

 

I think that's rather a sweeping statement. Collateral, anyone?

 

> ...they had enormous exposure problems using the video cameras

 

Be more specific. What kind? Overexposure latitude issues? I'm not terribly surprised; put a load of film people who don't really know what they're doing on a video shoot and I think it's reasonable to expect problems.

 

This has been a long term bugbear of mine - lots of experience on big features shooting 35mm does not make you God's gift to filmmaking to the extent that you can convert from one format to another with no training. This assumption is another gigantic insult to anyone who's spent a lot of time learning how to get good results out of video - obviously the second it starts getting used for real work we'll just get the 35mm guys on to it - and then start complaining that it isn't exactly the same as 35! Grow up...

 

> What the hell was Lucas thinking?

 

Merchandising revenues.

 

Phil

[Jonathan Spear]

Hey,

 

Besides the ever so tiresome Jar-Jar Binks "character" ( :angry: ) Star Wars 2 kicked arse.

 

Heck, I'd gladly pay 8$ to sit and stare at Natalie Portman on a big theater screen any day of the week anyway.

 

Oh no! SW2 was shot on video!

 

:o

 

WELL RUN FOR THE HILLS BOB BARKER!!!!

 

:rolleyes:

[Guest Kai.w]

Episode I was originated on film, but I thought the pictures, both CGI and live action, were VERY ordinary, certainly greatly inferior to the original 70s and 80s  movies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you serious? One can argue about how they used the CGI and especially whether it's use had any purpose other than to show off but to say it was technically inferior...? It had a very different style to it (compared to the original movies) and one can like this slightly flat cleanliness or not.

And you can go on and on about Jar Jar Binks, but hey it's not like C3PO was any better.

Star Wars is for kids and it was for kids ~20 years ago.

It's just like most of the people who complain about the new movies were teens when the old came out. Plus at that time it was probably the first real of the new FX driven Blockbusters so it was quite unique

 

And of course, five years on, not a single feature of any significance has been shot by anybody else using video cameras, including Columbia movies like Spider-Man and the X-Men; Columbia being OWNED by Sony!

 

What the hell was Lucas thinking? Apart from the magic words "Star Wars" in the title there was nothing special at all about Star Wars II,  despite Lucas's waffling about the flexibility of the video medium, and considering how long he took to make the bloody thing!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I quite like the fact that at least someone tries to make something different to all the others and if you have seen EII digitally projected you may think that it actually achieved something very UNIQUE visually!

Whether you like that is a matter of taste.

btw.: don't get me wrong the movies itself are crap of course but that has nothing to do with the medium it was shot on...

 

-k

[Fulgencio Martinez]

"HDCAM doesn't look fantastic burned out to 35mm, but it's more than good enough than the popcorn-chewers don't care"

 

popcorn-chewers pay our living

just because they don´t know the technical facts, it does not mean they are stupid.

I´ve heard many of them say these films are poop.

I think the worst films are those based on the stupidity of their audiences. I´ve never seen polanski do something like that.

 

"Heck, I'd gladly pay 8$ to sit and stare at Natalie Portman on a big theater screen any day of the week anyway."

 

I prefer buying a playboy magazine than paying 8 dollars to watch a beautiful little girl. that is never the reason why i watch a film

 

 

I´ve never been a fan of earlier SW films but they were espectacular. Many tv series look better than this.

WHAT THE F**K IS THIS? A FILM? I DON´T THINK SO

[Annie Wengenroth]

Somebody told me once that I look like Natalie Portman... :blink: Anyway, it seems to me that when it comes to films like Star Wars, most people are often willing to let details slide so that they can watch the film for entertainment purposes. Not to mention, like Kai said, a lot of the people who complain about the newer movies are die-hard fans of the older ones, so naturally they are somewhat biased. Sure, the new ones have a different look, but so does everything else of this day and age, right? At times they do look a little half-assed, I fell asleep during Episode II, and I f@#!ing HATE Jar Jar Binks. but I don't think Lucas is trying to deliberately sell himself short, or anybody else for that matter. I think he's just going for a different target audience and for the moment, his aim isn't so great.

 

More specifically, a lot of movies in the action/sci-fi/adventure genres are made mostly for pre-teens and teenagers. Particularly in this decade, there are a lot of kids that age who not only demand, but EXPECT, entertainment often in the forms of Internet, TV, or movies. No offense to anybody in that age group; I myself turn 23 in less than a month and still occasionally get mistaken for a high school student! However, think about most kids in that age range- what are their top priorities and expectations for the movies they see? Probably different from those of older people. Then there are the timeless classics that you can enjoy at any age, but perhaps one of the reasons we continue to enjoy them is because we loved them when *we* were that age, nostalgia and all that. I know that's how it is for me with the Indiana Jones movies, which I loved when I was about 11.

 

I agree that the "popcorn-chewers" help to line our wallets and to that extent, we rely on them. But George Lucas is still there to entertain, and he has said this himself many times, so I don't think the popcorn-chewers are perceived by him as mindless idiots, nor do I think they are going anywhere anytime soon. (Except to the theaters...)

[Phil Rhodes]

You know her real name is something like Natalie Spunkeldorfer or something brutally Germanic like that....

[Mark Allen]

When talking about Lucas I think you have to keep something in mind. Here is a guy whose little dream project that no one believed in redefined profit potential and marketing for the entire industry. He became richer than he probably ever expected, more powerful than he'd imagined.

 

So, where's the fun? Where's the challenge?

 

Yes, you could argue (and I might) that the challenge is in tapping into the human experience and sharing that... but I don't think that's what his primary goal is. I think the challenge for him is to actually progress the industry. And he has the power to do it. He probably finds that rewarding on some level. I think a lot of his thinking is "What can I get away with?" "How little money can I make something really huge for?"

 

I knew a low budget director who had done over 30 movies and by now he didn't really seem to care about them anymore. It was easy to get them financed and made and what he started doing was similar to Lucas - he started trying to make challenges. "What if we could only have the star on the set for one day?" "What if we shot two films at once, one during the day, one at night?" "What if we had to write a 2nd movie that matched all the same props and locations as the first, but make it a totally different movie?"

 

The cure for this is simply to focus on telling a great story - but sometimes that's really intimidating and it's easier to focus on the tools and methodology.... because if you fail while tryig to tell a great story - you might be perceived as a bad filmmaker. If you fail pushing the technology and methodology - you were simply experimenting and being a maverick.

[Rik Andino]

Hey, bad acting ('cept for Harrison and Alec and Billy Dee...

...well maybe not Billy Dee) and chessy lines

was the reason Star Wars was so popular.

 

However it the reason why Star Wars sucks now...

Actually the real reason is the KIDS (us) who loved Star Wars grew up

And unfortunately LUCAS didn't...

He also spent twenty years not directing

And believe he could come back and be great once again

(And he really never was that great of a director, he was a better producer)

 

HD isn't the reason the movie sucks, the DIRECTOR is the reason

It's always the Director (and sometimes the producers) who is to blame.

 

Something many filmmakers forget

Cinema isn't about the technical qualities it's about the storytelling

 

Be good storytellers and we'll defeat the darkside

May the force be with you always

 

 

 

KARMA bums

[Guest fstop]

I think the worst films are those based on the stupidity of their audiences. I´ve never seen polanski do something like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So we're excluding the masterpiece that was PIRATES then? :unsure:

 

Phil is bang on the money Re: video ignorance.

[Annie Wengenroth]

You know her real name is something like Natalie Spunkeldorfer or something brutally Germanic like that....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:lol: Spunkeldorfer...that's awesome...

[Greg Gross]

I suppose one of my greatest let-downs this year was the fact that "Collateral"

was shot on HD(might as well just say video) as its not perfected yet. Maybe the

Panavision Genesis will get us there. Anyway I have a great respect for Mr. Mann

and I love the "English Patient" and I think Mr. Mann chose to shoot on the HD

format. I thought it should have been done on film and I've never bought the idea

that it could not be shot on film. The proof of that is that if there was no HD,video

it would have been shot on film. I think Mr. Lucas chose to shoot HD because he

wanted to also. Some people in my circles (tv writers) say that he is brillant,I do

not know. However I am sure that he intentionally chose the HD format for the

Star Wars productions. I mean I think he had a vision for the end,final product.

I've just recently had a personal let down because I've realized I can,t afford to

shoot my production on 16mm and must use the dv format. On the other hand

Mr. Lucas many million dollars later is a true success. So the thought occurs to

me that he must be doing something right, must have some knowledge of film-

making. However on the other hand though I know that if I had a good gaffer,

camera crews,35mm or 16mm format,good equipment, then I could make a

great film also. How do I know? Well because I just know, its a quiet calmness,

creativity inside of me. Many of you here on the forum have this creativity also.

I like that photograph of George Lucas,in the desert, cowboy boots and leather

jacket standing along side of an HD Cam on a tripod. Greg Gross

[Justin Hayward]

I have a great respect for Mr. Mann and I love the "English Patient" and I think Mr. Mann chose to shoot on the HD

format.

 

I?m confused. Was ?The English Patient? shot on HD or do you think Michael Mann directed it?

 

Somewhere Michael Man said he shot HD to see into the L.A. night. Somebody told me the other day how impressed they were with ?Collateral?. They had no idea how FILM could see into the night like that. He was shocked that there was a stock this fast. That?s probably why Michael Mann shot HD.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Well all right guys, tell me this then:

 

1. What exactly did Lucas do with his video cameras that he couldn't have done just as well if not better with film? He cartainly wasn't short of money, and let's face it, how much extra would it have cost him to use film? As I said in my first post, apart from the name "Star Wars" in the title, what was so special about his latest efforts?

 

You know what really pissed me off? For years we'd been waiting for the technology to become available to depict the "Clone Wars" realistically, that is an army made up of thousands of identical warriors. But what did we get? Thousands of warriors wearing identical full-face helmets! Nice one Goerge.

 

2. Why did George tell so many f*cking lies about how easy and cost effective it was?

 

For example, those idiotic magazine ads which showed him with a stack of film cans vs a smallish pile of video cassettes. The fact was, he hardly used any video tape, the vast majority of SWII (and III) were recorded directly to disk drives via a cable. His main implication was that here at last was a "film -quality" video camera that you use just like a film camera. That is, you could just substitute a tape cassette for a film mag, and everything else was the same. (Portability wise). Nothing could be further from the truth: the film studio was turned into a TV studio with cables running everywhere.

 

Again, my sources at Panavision Sydney tell me thay kept coming back for more and more massive lights to try to keep the video noise down. Same ol' same ol': it looks fine until you show it on a fifty-foot screen. The video noise was shocking on some scenes in episode II

 

3. I said movies of any significance: what is the "significance" of "Collateral"? It's just a fairly ordinary movie that happened to be partly shot on video. Yeah, it was hard to tell the film from the video a lot of the time, but that was because the film images weren't that good anyway.

 

Every time I ask this question I just get the same litany of "exceptions that prove the rule", that is stuff that was shot on video because they had to, not because they necessarily wanted to.

 

Get real guys. How many cinema-release features are made each year? How many were shot on video. Do the bloody math. What's wrong with this picture...?

Edited January 23, 2005 by Jim Murdoch

[Guest jeremy edge]

You know ,I think what George tried top do was obvious...make the cgi and the footage blend better.Its easier to make cgi look like mediocre video than to make it look like film and when that much of your movie is cgi why not just use video?

 

Take for instance the scene where anikan and obi wan are standing on a balcony overlooking the city of the planet (that seems to be all-city)That wouldnt have been possible without cgi ...and the actors blend in because there is a slightly artificial look to them as well.You dont have a greater sense of realism to compare to looking at the actors then dismissing the cgi as looking "fake" He's trying to get you dropped into the movie instead of noticing things like that.

 

And you have to realize that even though he's not the groundbreaking director he has been made out to be George has his hands on just about everything hollywood with thx and industrial light and magic.At least in the world of action,sci fi and the likes.

 

So he's moving forward how he sees fit and you can bet he's paving the way for things to come.(better or not) He's figuring that as technology advances more and more cgi is going to be used in films and marrying that with hd cameras is logical and conveneint. as the technology advances in the cameras and in cgi there will be fewer limits in what you can do in a movie and thus pushing the envelope.

 

Or at least I think thats what he's thinking ...I'm not sure if im convinced yet that this is the best way to make movies right now.anyone followed the video diary of the making of "king kong" ?...looks like they are using tons of cgi blended with 35mm.

should look good.I hate be a suckup to something so ridiculously popular but I think the LOTR trilogy pulls off cgi blending with actors way better than George's episode 2.

[Guest Kai.w]

Again, my sources at Panavision Sydney tell me thay kept coming back for more and more massive lights to try to keep the video noise down. Same ol' same ol': it looks fine until you show it on a fifty-foot screen. The video noise was shocking on some scenes in episode II

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it was not. Again, in the digital projection there was no noise at all! I've seen the film print too and I agree that it looked rather bad. Makes me think of whether Lucas did it on purpose to promote digital projections ;-)

 

3. I said movies of any significance: what is the "significance" of "Collateral"? It's just a fairly ordinary movie that happened to be partly shot on video. Yeah, it was hard to tell the film from the video a lot of the time, but that was because the film images weren't that good anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What sort of an argument is this...?

http://www.cinematography.com/index.asp?newsID=4393

Collateral was one of my favorite movies of 04. It's look made sense.

 

Get real guys. How many cinema-release features are made each year? How many were shot on video. Do the bloody math. What's wrong with this picture...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what you think what's right or wrong nor do I know what you're at all aiming at. All I know is that EpisodeII was a real unique visual experience to me.

It's nothing that goes very deep (since it does'nt connect to anything else of interest in the movie) but it was extraordinairy...

 

-k

[Felipe Perez-Burchard]

I think the biggest problem that Lucas has come up to that is partially why the films are so bad, is that he is so big (poweful I mean), that nobody says "no, that's a bad idea, that doesn't fit within the context. etc", its as if there is no rewriting, just a first draft.

 

Furthermore he is trying to further the craft, it makes since to shoot a film that is almost 100% blue screen to be composited with tons of fx on video.

The problem / danger of shooting this way is that it's easier to lose track of the reality that you ultimately want to create: in performances, in lighting, blocking, et all.

 

Plus like someone said, Lucas hadn't directed since the origial Star Wars...

 

Michael Mann said something along the lines of "if you don't keep active in your craft, you go stale" and I think that is true for anybody.

(By the way, I think video was the absolute right choice for Collateral).

 

I think it would have been much more interesting and challenging to try to use the great digital technology to achieve the exact look of the originals; then he would prove that the technology can do anything.

 

My 2 cents.

 

-felipe.

Edited January 23, 2005 by felipe

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Makes me think of whether Lucas did it on purpose to promote digital

> projections ;-)

 

Nothing. Shooting HD out to film makes it look soft and noisy, scanning film onto HD makes it look soft and noisy. Project the HD as HD and it looks vastly better, project the film as film and ditto.

 

> I said movies of any significance: what is the "significance" of "Collateral"? It's

> just a fairly ordinary movie that happened to be partly shot on video.

 

That's opinion. My opinion was that it looked OK, but that's not what's important.

 

> How many cinema-release features are made each year? How many were shot

> on video. Do the bloody math. What's wrong with this picture...?

 

I hate to sound like a grungy wannabe filmmaker here, but unpopularity is not a reason to avoid something. It's certainly not a quantifiable technical reason to do so.

 

Oh, and Spunkeldorfer isn't as awesome as "Wengenroth", Frau Annie...

 

Phil

Edited January 23, 2005 by Phil Rhodes

[Michael Most]

The fact was, he hardly used any video tape, the vast majority of SWII (and III) were recorded directly to disk drives via a cable.

 

I don't know where you got that, but it is not true. All of Episode 2's principal photography was recorded on tape, HDCam to be precise. Some of the miniature unit work at ILM was recorded to disk, but not the principal photography. I'm not 100% certain about Episode 3, but my understanding is that most of it was also recorded to tape, HDCam SR this time. I'll check on that tomorrow and let you know whether that's accurate or not.

[Landon D. Parks]

Lets not forget about Sky Captain and the World of tomorrow... Fairly large production shot 100% on F900 from what I understand.

 

I have always heard from his web documentarys that SWII was shot almost entirely on HDCAM tape, not disk.

 

Now on the other hand SWIII I hear is being recorded to HDCAM SR @ 880MBPs. Just what I have heard.

 

and to the origional posted, you seem to be dead against Digital to be a Digital Image Technician. As your "Primary Job" states. I thought I D.I.T was someone who works with HD video, and even video in general (SD).

 

P.S) As you said that Star Was sets have turned into a TV studio with all the cables running. Trust me, if you really want you can haven 10 times as many cables on a FILM set also.

 

and in a way Film camera are video camera since they have a built in CCD. And it takes a lot of calbes to run to the Directors monitors, DOP's Monitors, Set moniotors and Playback Recording station, ect.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Landon D. Parks]

you dont have to have 10 million cables on an HD set. Besides, what's a few more cords have to do with it? Cords don't seem to be a problem to me.

 

Maybee a few other cords in certain places, but not a lot more than what you'll see on any modern film set.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Landon D. Parks

[Allen Achterberg]

You know her real name is something like Natalie Spunkeldorfer or something brutally Germanic like that....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And Mine isnt!? Allen Wayne Achterberg is pretty german aber ist mir egal. Arri...Zeiss, Chrosziel...german engeneering....ahhh

[David Cox]

For a post intensive feature such as this, where the director has almost decided to shoot elements from which he will construct scenes later, the HD route does help. Film wobbles in the gate (film weave) and no matter how stable the camera and scanner claim to be, its always there. On its own you don't tend to see it, but when you put two film elements together, you can see them start to wobble about. We can stablise them (most of the time), but this stabilization is done by making sub-pixel sized movements. This forces the software to interpolate images and adds some softness.

 

HD originated material doesn't have this issue. It just has a few different issues :-)

 

Anyway, I have just come back from watching Aviator in my local theatre and it was soft as the pope's unmentionables and covered in grain and dirt. How did the "popcorn munchers" ever accept that?

 

David Cox

Managing Director

Baraka Post Production Ltd

www.baraka.co.uk

[Landon D. Parks]

I resent being called a pop corn muncher!!!! lol, just kidding.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

I don't know where you got that, but it is not true. All of Episode 2's principal photography was recorded on tape, HDCam to be precise.

 

As it happens, I "got that" from John Virtue, Panavision Australia's Digital Imaging manager, who supervised the whole job. He even had overhead projector slides to illustrate this.

 

Yes, everything was recorded on tape all right, but only as a backup! Lucas himself admitted that they even had film cameras on the set early in the piece, but he claims that was an insurance issue, and not his idea at all!

 

I believe a small amount of of HDCAM footage was used for non-critical work, (for example, providing the background onto which other images were matted), but only when they ran out of server inputs. Chroma-keying off component video is a dodgy enough exercise just for ordinary TV, it's hopeless for large-screen stuff, as G.L. no doubt discovered!

 

You're just quoting the same "house of mirrors" B.S. that everybody else does.