i don't rate Star Wars highly anymore

[David Mullen ASC]

That other shot in LOA is at the end of the scene when Ali (Omar Sherif) meets Lawrence, after killing the guide at the well. It ends on a low-angle shot of Ali against the sky, who says something like "God be with you!" and rides out of frame, and then the camera slowly tilts down and reveals a wide landscape shot, with Lawrence small in frame, crossing.

 

I don't recall any specific shot in "Star Wars" that copies one from "Lawrence of Arabia", just that there's a similar interest in wide vistas of the desert.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Who cares .....if its done right and in good taste there is nothing wrong with "infleunce" on ones work.

 

I'm like that line in the Queen song, "...JAWS was never my scene and I don't like STAR WARS", but Lucas knows WTF he is doing. We are all products of impression and so is our work. That is the way humans adapt. Very little has ever been done TOTALLY original! Especially in the pop entertainment world, such as genre efforts. One person does something and someone else comes along and puts a twist in it, and then another, etc. and then we stumble into "convention" until someone else comes along.....

 

So, not trying to be an ass, I still don't get it. You say you don't rate SW high anymore. Did you change your mind when you found all this out about influences and such, and if so,....why? Again, I don't like SW but its done in good taste by a person who ubderstands cinema. I could never make it (for multiple reasons :lol: ) but I'd never be ashamed of it, thats fo' shizzle!

 

much ado about nothing....

 

-Jonnie

[Chris Graham]

What does any of this have to do with cinematography? I think this whole thread belongs somewhere else; "off topic" or another site altogether...

 

as the British say, "you missed be taking the piss!"

 

it's not like i'm comparing books here. lol

[Chris Graham]

That other shot in LOA is at the end of the scene when Ali (Omar Sherif) meets Lawrence, after killing the guide at the well. It ends on a low-angle shot of Ali against the sky, who says something like "God be with you!" and rides out of frame, and then the camera slowly tilts down and reveals a wide landscape shot, with Lawrence small in frame, crossing.

 

I don't recall any specific shot in "Star Wars" that copies one from "Lawrence of Arabia", just that there's a similar interest in wide vistas of the desert.

 

Well, I just referenced LOA as a dune influence. I do recall in Film school that being called "reflexibility" it's ongoing and common practice.

 

regarding the shot you mentioned, that's what I was referring to, a seemless transition of one continued shot (w/out special effects) to another establishment. it was brilliant. been a while since i've seen the film, but it's a shot you don't forget!

[Luc Allein]

If you're gonna have a problem with Star Wars borrowing from other epics, then DON'T research any other movies you really like, because odds are they've all been borrowed or influenced from other sources.

 

You're telling me you're not gonna enjoy Scorsese's movies anymore because they borrow heavily and sometimes even directly from tons of other movies? He even came into his style from the neo-realism movement of Italian cinema and the whole new wave of the 60s, Marty didnt just make everything up himself.

 

"Directors steal from other directors!" - Swingers

Edited May 30, 2007 by Luc Allein

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Let's also not forget that Trumbull/Yuricich were using a more sophisticated motion control system for CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, made at the same time as STAR WARS. Al Miller and his crew physically made BOTH systems.

 

Trumbull was using motion control systems on '2001'. Though not yet computer controlled.

 

He also used motion control on 'Silent Running', with Dykstra working for him.

 

So Dykstra got the concepts from Trumbull.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh! And I just remembered that 'Ben Hur has one or two 'motion control shots' in it. They're matte painings, the one I'm sure of is BH wlaking out into the circus after or before the race and ther's a tilt up to the top of the central island & maybe at the triumph in Rome.

& Yuricich was one of he matte painters.

[Chris Graham]

If you're gonna have a problem with Star Wars borrowing from other epics, then DON'T research any other movies you really like, because odds are they've all been borrowed or influenced from other sources.

 

You're telling me you're not gonna enjoy Scorsese's movies anymore because they borrow heavily and sometimes even directly from tons of other movies? He even came into his style from the neo-realism movement of Italian cinema and the whole new wave of the 60s, Marty didnt just make everything up himself.

 

"Directors steal from other directors!" - Swingers

 

Not really, but I understand you. I'm into classic Japanese cinema and that of Samurai flicks. What other country was doing epics of Samurai stories before the Japanese? who copied who? Samurai Rebellion is not even in Kurosawa esque, one of Mifune's best performances. most Jedi close-ups that come in with the dolly were inspired by that one Mifune shot. it's greatly introduced in Phantom Menace. I will add that Phantom Menace is breathtaking even with the score. I guess it's not bad to continue traditional styles out of respect, but again, camera movement should be the biggest challenge for any cinematographer, and should have heavy responsibility in telling the Director, "well let me suggest this." that's where a cinematographer embraces his style. There are plenty of Cinematographers that care less, and you get that from the root of film school and how they worked. Those habits and traits continue, and therefore the one's that win awards are the ones who were outstanding achievers in school, or the unique individuals.

 

maybe i'm just in a weird mood lately. maybe you guys can give me ten great reasons as to why Star Wars is the bomb! technical and story reasons. I need to get back into Lucas mode, and no I'm not a hypocrite! lol

[Josh Brokenbourgh]

don't forget john ford.

 

"good poets borrow, great poets steal".

 

jk :ph34r:

 

I just think that back in the day Lucas was forced to innovate and the look turned out great, story 6 out of 10. Which by western standards is a blockbuster still to this day (clearly). Since Lucas only needs to rely on hype to sail the ship his innovation level has decreased. His stories are campfire quality, sometimes that works for people.

 

Some people try to turn film into science, like Murch. Some people turn it into dollars, like Lucas. Some people try to confuse you with bad stories and bad imagery, like Kevin Smith.

[Max Jacoby]

I caught half an hour of 'Return of the Jedi' on TV yesterday. I haven't seen this film for over 15 years and boy has it aged! The costumes look really badly designed, the camouflage pattern spray-painted onto the fabric, the 'armor' obviously just plastic. The chase with these jet-scooters through the forest was risible, the effects looked very unconvincing. Obviosuly the mise-en-scène is pure shooting by the numbers, but what surprised me most is how unfalttering Princess Leia is lit. There were a couple of close-ups where the lit on her face was very hard, bringing out all the lines and wrinkles. And all that was just on the small screen, really don't want to imagine what it must have looked like in a theatre.

[Chris Graham]

Well I guess in 30+ years to come someone will remake Star Wars again. Not a bad idea. so then that would mean this whole thread was paradoxical!! :ph34r:

[James Steven Beverly]

I caught half an hour of 'Return of the Jedi' on TV yesterday. I haven't seen this film for over 15 years and boy has it aged! The costumes look really badly designed, the camouflage pattern spray-painted onto the fabric, the 'armor' obviously just plastic. The chase with these jet-scooters through the forest was risible, the effects looked very unconvincing. Obviosuly the mise-en-scène is pure shooting by the numbers, but what surprised me most is how unfalttering Princess Leia is lit. There were a couple of close-ups where the lit on her face was very hard, bringing out all the lines and wrinkles. And all that was just on the small screen, really don't want to imagine what it must have looked like in a theatre.

 

Modern body armor is plastic:

 

"In a move to overcome the problems of wearing hard armour vests, a new type of material has been designed that not only protects the body from soft bullets but is also designed to withstand a burst of fire from an automatic firearm. The Lorica Armour Vest, recently demonstrated on the BBCâ??s Tomorrowâ??s World programme, is the brainchild of Digby Dyke From Lorica Research. The vest uses the new material, which is made from three types of synthetic polymer fibre that have very high impact and penetration resistance. These fibres are already used in the manufacture of body armour, but the key to the new fabricâ??s strength lies in deeply impregnating the fibre textile with an ethylene-based thermoplastic resin to form a strong net. In the finished vest, 22 layers of the fabric work independently to absorb and dissipate the energy from the bullet."

 

I saw Return 4 days ago and I was amazed at how well it held up after 28 years. Luke's costume looks great, the speeder-cycles were increadible and I found the editing exciting and thrilling as it moved the action sequences alone at a terriffic pace, intercuting the 3 lines of action together to hightening the tension and bringing the saga to a spectacular conclusion. The scene of Luke burning on a pire the last remininates of what his father had been in order to release his spirit into the light was possitively Vagnarian. Whatdaya want with an action, sci/fi epic, a sled in a funace? B)

Edited June 3, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[James Steven Beverly]

Oh and BTW Pricess Leia in her slave bikini.... :blink: what the Hell are you taking about un-flattering? She even kinda looked hot in her mediviel treehouse outfit.

Edited June 3, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[David Mullen ASC]

For someone my age, who was a teenager in 1977, "Star Wars" was a breath of fresh air. It was one of the movies that made me want to make movies (although "2001" and "Close Encounters" were more responsible.)

 

I watched the original trilogy again recently and it holds up for me, although I always had problems with "Return of the Jedi" even when I first saw it.

 

The costumes weren't as well-manufactured (looked too-freshly sewn), the rubber monsters from the ILM creature department suffered in comparison to Stuart Freeborn's great work (Yoda, Chewbacca, and Jabba the Hut), the dialogue was glib sometimes and Harrison Ford was rather mugging in his performance compared to his darker tones in "Empire" where he almost comes off as a silent film star with his moody stares. I know he was consciously trying to not take center stage as he did in "Empire" but why that manifested itself in a hammy & weak performance, I don't know.

 

The efx were great.

 

The photography was more uneven than in "Empire"; it looked like, scene to scene, it was trying to decide whether to copy the look of "Star Wars" or the look of "Empire". Probably the result of trying to return the series back to the style of the original, but it ended up lacking the personal signature look that Kirshner/Suschitsky gave the second one, which in my book is actually one of the best-photographed fantasy films ever, and best designed. "Return" is certainly competently photographed, and occasionally atmospheric, but I've never found much I could apply to my own work, unlike "Empire" which I lift lighting ideas from now & then.

 

William's music also has a somewhat pasted-together quality in that one.

 

And I still have trouble with Evoks. And Boba Fett's inglorious & quick demise. And the upside-down R2D2 and C3PO pulled out of the sand dune against an obvious painted backdrop. And the Evoks.

 

But in comparison to the prequels that followed, "Return of the Jedi" starts to look better as a movie, dramatically -- although I think there was some brilliant production design and effects in the prequels.

 

Did I mention how much I hated the Evoks? They only look good in comparison to Jar-Jar Binks...

[William A Chapman Jr]

As far as the last 3 Star wars films Episode 1, 2 and 3, I think 2 was better story wise and 3 was better fx wise, I thought 1 was horrible, just my opion.

[James Steven Beverly]

Did I mention how much I hated the Evoks?

 

You don't like tree dwelling, spear toting, man eating, leatherclad, faux fur, teddybears, who whorship a gold-plated robot, can hotwire a space chopper and will smash a ostridge legged tank between 2 logs in a New York second ALL while remaining cute and cuddley as we chuckle at their antics? I find that hard to believe.

 

They only look good in comparison to Jar-Jar Binks...

 

That's probably true for almost any movie charature you could name.....except for maybe a few John Travolta movies from the 80s. B)

Edited June 3, 2007 by James Steven Beverly

[Guest Tim Partridge]

Trumbull was using motion control systems on '2001'. Though not yet computer controlled.

 

He also used motion control on 'Silent Running', with Dykstra working for him.

 

So Dykstra got the concepts from Trumbull.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh! And I just remembered that 'Ben Hur has one or two 'motion control shots' in it. They're matte painings, the one I'm sure of is BH wlaking out into the circus after or before the race and ther's a tilt up to the top of the central island & maybe at the triumph in Rome.

& Yuricich was one of he matte painters.

 

Wally Veevers actually supervised the model photography on 2001, and the "sausage factory" motion control precursor he used was his own.

 

I'm sure Samson and Delilah had an "analog" variation of motion control too. Check this out (BUSINESS section):

 

http://www.cecilbdemille.com/legacy.html

[Andy_Alderslade]

Well here's someone who definitely doesn't rate Star Wars:

 

[Andy_Alderslade]

Well here's someone who definitely doesn't rate Star Wars:

 

[Guest Tim Partridge]

I caught half an hour of 'Return of the Jedi' on TV yesterday. I haven't seen this film for over 15 years and boy has it aged! The costumes look really badly designed, the camouflage pattern spray-painted onto the fabric, the 'armor' obviously just plastic. The chase with these jet-scooters through the forest was risible, the effects looked very unconvincing. Obviosuly the mise-en-scène is pure shooting by the numbers, but what surprised me most is how unfalttering Princess Leia is lit. There were a couple of close-ups where the lit on her face was very hard, bringing out all the lines and wrinkles. And all that was just on the small screen, really don't want to imagine what it must have looked like in a theatre.

 

I can't say I agree at all. I love the classical hard lit, deeper t-stop approach, especially on anamorphic movies and Alan Hume was (and I'm sure could still be) a master of his craft. Skies and backgrounds are exposed for, crisp compositions with use of both the background and the foreground. Thinking for the big screen. The theatrical stuff with all of the reactive lighting during the end lightsabre battle is the typical unsung technical creativity that Hume had bags of. I never cared for the Bergman approach to EMPIRE STRIKES BACK with all of the softlighting (not taking away from Peter Suschitsky's marvellous work).

 

The late James Glennon also did great work on JEDI, especially as this was his first big job as DP (for the US locations second unit). Amazing that so much of that stuff blends together so well with the main unit work given the circumstances.

 

There were well documented, big politics on JEDI concerning production staff and direction, and everyone had their work cut out. I think it's amazing how professional Hume was to have stuck the whole picture with all of the messy cross departmental politics and support Richard Marquand who George Lucas obviously had no real respect for. It is very unfair that Marquand gets all of the slack for the film's directorial shortcomings, when he was dictated many directorial ideas (such as the Ewoks and the excess of visual effects).

 

Irvin Kerschner seems to get a lot of praise for pushing visionary integrity when employed as a "journeyman" on EMPIRE. He also had Gary Kurtz's full support and a great script to work with. Plus, I'll take EYE OF THE NEEDLE and JAGGED EDGE over NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and the SEAQUEST pilot.

[Chris Graham]

Well here's someone who definitely doesn't rate Star Wars:

 

 

R2-Demon-2 ! lol

[David Sweetman]

Well here's someone who definitely doesn't rate Star Wars:

 

Geez, I have a headache after watching that. What a moron.

 

Also, Kurosawa took several stories directly from Shakespere and fit them into samurai settings. Even Tarkovsky considered doing that with Hamlet. Yet for me, something still separates Kurosawa and Tarkovsky from Lucas. Namely: consideration -- as in the Socrates quote, "the unconsidered life is not worth living." I'll extrapolate it: "the unconsidered film is not worth making." (though it is always worth watching if someone else has made it.)

 

Chris, perhaps what you have realized is not that the premises of Star Wars are slightly stolen, but that they are slightly empty. Whereas truth, borrowed or not, is always powerful -- as much as (and because) it is always personal -- drama and dramatic conventions stand only on their appearance and their originality. If these are compromised, the work itself is nullified.

 

Edit: Not to bash Star Wars too hard, I still love the original 3, but only for what they are; as in the aforementioned Asimov quote - you check your sophistication and just enjoy it. Sophistication is really meaningless anyway.

Edited June 5, 2007 by David Sweetman

[Andy_Alderslade]

Chris, perhaps what you have realized is not that the premises of Star Wars are slightly stolen, but that they are slightly empty. Whereas truth, borrowed or not, is always powerful -- as much as (and because) it is always personal -- drama and dramatic conventions stand only on their appearance and their originality. If these are compromised, the work itself is nullified.

 

I'm not to sure if I agree with this statement, you seem to be broaching that that there is a clear line between the considered film, a film by Tarkovsky or Kurosawa and that of the unconsidered film - that is perhaps an entertainment film like Star Wars.

 

Well cinema isn't like literature, where intellectual value justify the existence, cinema is an audio visual as well as emotional art form - where quality, originality and identification comes in varying forms. For example look at Lawrence of Arabia, its narratively simplistic, its attempt at psycho analysis of Lawrence is amateurish - yet in terms of its audio and visual aesthetics its one of the most accomplished films ever made.

 

This statement also assumes that a big entertainment film like star wars cannot contain elements and contents which promote it to being simply more than entertainment - I would say its 'entertainment with heart' if you like, and perhaps its that which makes it so eternally popular with so many people. After all the originals are old films now, and they have certainly sustained popularity beyond that of say Lethal Weapon!

[William A Chapman Jr]

Right now the History channel has 2 doc's on star wars, Star wars tech and star wars legacy. legacy disects the films and talks about simalar sceens from other movies and history it self. Its worth a look.

[James Steven Beverly]

Geez, I have a headache after watching that. What a moron.

 

Also, Kurosawa took several stories directly from Shakespere and fit them into samurai settings. Even Tarkovsky considered doing that with Hamlet. Yet for me, something still separates Kurosawa and Tarkovsky from Lucas. Namely: consideration -- as in the Socrates quote, "the unconsidered life is not worth living." I'll extrapolate it: "the unconsidered film is not worth making." (though it is always worth watching if someone else has made it.)

 

Chris, perhaps what you have realized is not that the premises of Star Wars are slightly stolen, but that they are slightly empty. Whereas truth, borrowed or not, is always powerful -- as much as (and because) it is always personal -- drama and dramatic conventions stand only on their appearance and their originality. If these are compromised, the work itself is nullified.

 

Edit: Not to bash Star Wars too hard, I still love the original 3, but only for what they are; as in the aforementioned Asimov quote - you check your sophistication and just enjoy it. Sophistication is really meaningless anyway.

 

Unconsidered film? When was the last time you say a Seven Samurai convention or an Andrei Rublev fan film? Star Wars was made 30 years ago and STILL affects people's lives, not bad for a vacuious sci/fi flick, in fact name me ANY other film that has had that kind of cultural impact after 30 years. Star Wars is a great epic myth that is no less timeless that the Iliad and the Oddessy, Jason and the Argonughts, Beowulf, King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Robin Hood, The Three Musketeers, Aladdin. I'd say it's tremendiously considered. B)

[Keith Mottram]

Unconsidered film? When was the last time you say a Seven Samurai convention or an Andrei Rublev fan film? Star Wars was made 30 years ago and STILL affects people's lives, not bad for a vacuious sci/fi flick, in fact name me ANY other film that has had that kind of cultural impact after 30 years. Star Wars is a great epic myth that is no less timeless that the Iliad and the Oddessy, Jason and the Argonughts, Beowulf, King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Robin Hood, The Three Musketeers, Aladdin. I'd say it's tremendiously considered. B)

 

and a lot of people like mcdonalds hamburgers...