the crimes of george lucas ('90s on)

film crit hulk owns

You don't need to apologize for having different needs than we do, it's cool.

What? This is not the Internet our forenerds fought for.

I'm actually thankful for the overbloated 3D movie ticket price because it's going to be SO much easier for me to say "$15 to see Jar Jar Binks, so effing way".

I was talking with a friend last night about these. He said he liked AOTC the best out of the prequels because of the Yoda fight, and I remembered at the time seeing the Yoda fight was the coolest thing ever. I know it "sullies the solemn nature of Yoda" or whatever and is an obvious videogame cash grab, but it was the only genuinely thrilling and surprising moment for me in the whole prequel series.

The prequels are all terrible but I actually liked a lot of the *imagery* in Attack of the Clones. I thought the stormy water planet with the clone factory looked neat, and I liked the quasi-Harryhausen monster arena toward the end.

And Christopher Lee is just always a badass.

sigh

Sorry s1ocki

Agreed about the imagery. The best format for the prequels would've been a large, wordless coffee table book of full-page photographic illustrations.

Attack of the Clones is my favorite of the prequels. In particular, I really enjoy the sequence of battle scenes starting with the gladiator scene through to the end of the movie. Each of those sequences has some really nice visual ideas going on.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060414171016/starwars/images/thumb/9/99/Queenamidalapaperdoll.jpg/250px-Queenamidalapaperdoll.jpg

xp. I er own that btw. According to the back "Inside this book you'll find a collection of the Queen's most gorgeous gowns, each one more richly detailed than the next".

Did you?

They did not get progressively shitter iirc.

yeah the Red Letter stuff is very informative in easy to understand yet cine literate terms whereas most reviews don't bother with a lot of that stuff nor have the space to go at it in such detail. the whole 'walking and talking' comparison with the first 3 movies bit is amazing. i mean sure some folk can work all that out for themselves and shiz but i still appreciated someone else taking the trouble and making it so funny.

i actually find the RLM stuff very smart and insightful. i like smart and insightful commentary on film, especially when it deals with the purely cinematic/mise-en-scene elements that RLM stuff really focuses on. the idea that people would just "figure this stuff out themselves" is ridiculous.

Agreed about the imagery. The best format for the prequels would've been a large, wordless coffee table book of full-page photographic illustrations.

― SNEEZED GOING DOWN STEPS, PAIN WHEN PUTTING SOCKS ON (Deric W. Haircare), Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:59 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

seriously. i hope nobody thinks i was trying to defend the prequels. cuz there's a *lot* of hideous, ungainly cinematography and doofy effects in these movies in addition to the scant few things i was singling out for praise.

The waterworld stuff in AOTC I actually liked, because it was Obiwan investigating and learning things, and we were learning along with him.

Yoda fight was dumb, and deliberately went against the character into fanboy wank that never works. Film Crit Hulk wrote something about how if your approach to plotting starts with "Wouldn't it be cool if" you usually have already lost.

Also, there's something about all these guys' critiques that I find educational, making me more aware of shit than my coupla film classes built me up. It's made me more conscious and apprehensive and pretty much just disdainful of geeky friends getting hyped for upcoming geek shit regardless of any possible quality or point.

It's like, news flash, nerds won; genre consumption has gotten predictably monetized so there will always be plenty of geek/nerd shit on sale for you. There will always be plenty of superhero movies, fantasy epics, and sci-fi auctioneers for you to blow dosh on. You just don't need to breathlessly anticipate empty genre crap.

I can't remember if it was either Hammet or Chandler who ripped into how shit genre entertainment could be, and yet still get pushed out into the marketplace. He said in the '30s, about how the average mediocre novel won't necessarily get published, but that the most average mediocre detective story sure as shit will.

This is probly needs a thread all its own, but I find it heavily relevant to everything Lucas has shat out post-Radioland Murders.

u sorta forget he/they also *looked* pretty cool back in the day. you know for film nerd types.

http://www.thisisnotporn.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Kate-Capshaw-Steven-Spielberg-George-Lucas-and-Harrison-Ford-from-Indiana-Jones-and-the-Temple-of-Doom1.jpg

Did they?

Spielburg's shorts not so much, but the rest totally. But Harrison Ford basically looks good in anything.

Spielberg and Lucas were NEVER cool

Putting Indy-era Ford in there is stacking the deck imo

Spielberg was the coolest director in Hollywood after Jaws. But, that awesomness capital has obviously been spent.

More red meat for everyone here:

THR: People can get fanatical about the movies — how does that make you feel? The puppet vs. CGI Yoda ruckus, and the who-shot-first, Han Solo or Greedo furor come to mind.

Lucas: Well, it’s not a religious event. I hate to tell people that. It’s a movie, just a movie. The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo [who seemed to be the one who shot first in the original] to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.

And, indeed:

THR: What’s the status of Indiana Jones 5? Steven Spielberg says he’s waiting to hear from you.

Lucas: I know, and I’m supposed to be working on it right now, but I’m talking to you instead (Laughs).

so Red Tails has bombed, yes?

All art is technology and it improves every year

Says it all really. What a cock.

xpost -- Not entirely:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=redtails.htm

All art is technology and it improves every year

cadence of this is very Geir-esque

Insisting on calling Star Wars "Episode IV" is one of the things that most annoys me about him. It's your own film. Call it by its name.
The last time he was on the Daily Show I just couldn't watch it, because I couldn't watch Jonny Beefstew fawn over this wanker yet again.

Again, dude's in a place where no one can say no to him. He divorced the only person who could like 30 years ago.

Another one of the good points that Mike @ RLM made when reviewing the blu-ray changes is that there's a weird ownership thing going on where Lucas has gotten to the point where he's changing flicks that he didn't write or direct, and inserting things into them that fundamentally alter the characters for no reason. Han shooting first was just the tip, but also luke screaming when he fell(added and then removed) and the Vader "No".

We can safely wrap everything up by reminding ourselves that -> Dude things Empire is the worst of the three originals. Says it all.

I like Sean's take here:

http://www.avclub.com/articles/george-lucas-says-han-never-shot-first-you-were-ju,69159/

As it turns out, those who saw that controversial edit as a fundamental betrayal of the character—changing Han Solo from a shrewd, streetwise bad-ass to a guy who got really lucky that Greedo is such a lousy shot; rendering his evolution from amoral antihero to full-blown hero less meaningful, etc. —well, they were just confused all along, because Lucas now says Han never shot first

[...]

Indeed, it was only the audience’s own bloodlust that led them astray and left them so confused for so many years—a bloodlust that festered into their ravenous need to set jaws upon George Lucas every time he tries to make his work a little more innocent and magical. Fortunately, all it took was a wider shot and a grafted-on cartoon laser beam to save future generations from wandering down that same dark path, which leads only to anger, hatred, and in forthcoming editions, a nice periwinkle garden.

Spielberg was the coolest director in Hollywood after Jaws. But, that awesomness capital has obviously been spent.

― Frobisher (Viceroy), Thursday, February 9, 2012 9:59 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well, being cool for a 70s film director is pretty faint praise. It was nerd central.

"Jonny Beefstew"?

Spielberg wasn't cool after Jaws. He was "hot"

"Jonny Beefstew"?

It's what muppet Michael Steele used to call Jon Stewart.

All art is technology and it improves every year

we concur.

Spielberg was cool when he directed Joan Crawford when he was 22.

i think the prequels are sad and largely awful but i can't deny that there are some affecting sequences that i grudgingly admire. weirdly they are probably more affecting out of context since your brain hasn't been numbed and/or offended by the dreck surrounding them.

there's something similarly affecting about reading interviews w/ lucas between 1970 and 1975 or so; he's treated with respect by film comment and the like, and he muses almost modestly about wanting to make a film paying tribute to the serials he grew up watching. the interviewers often comment on his innovative use of camera technology in american graffiti and that film's innovative wall-to-wall sourced soundtrack. little did we know that the mythopoetics he was dreaming up would consume nearly his entire career and swallow his talent -- almost whole.

what do people think about american graffiti? i respect it, but i don't really enjoy it. two thoughts about that. one, i think it's hard for me to "see" clearly through all the dozens (or 100s) of films that have ripped it off to varying amounts. what read like impossibly worn clichés now obviously read differently in 1973. two, it seems a like a film that would benefit from seeing it in 35mm on a big screen. the cars and all that.

also it's a cliché but lucas was probably always better shooting cars and technology than people, in a way. i don't mean that solely as a "he doesn't care about people" slight. there's an inventiveness to the way he shoots cars in A.G. and spaceships in S.W. that isn't matched the pedestrian ways he blocks and shoots actors. this problem obviously intensifies with the prequels, where most dialogue sequences can properly be called "inept."

as someone who teaches film it's totally unforgivable that lucas has taken the original star wars out of circulation. it's a film of enormous historical importance, not least for its special effects, and showing the 1997 or later versions in a film history class would make no sense.

it's ironic that "star wars" was one of the first features chosen for the national film registry, since lucas has ensured in years since that even if the original film negative or projection prints are sitting in archives, nobody is going to show them to the public. i'd actually like to write a nice letter explaining how keeping the original version in circulation somehow would be a service to the study of film history, but i get a feeling he wouldn't reply or possibly would shit in a box and send it to me overnight.

^he already did that. it's called Star Wars on blu-ray.

lol

also:

http://www.mwctoys.com/REVIEW_100705b.htm

i mean i didn't really care much until i started teaching.

i've ONLY ever seen the original version. in theaters during its 82-83 revival in advance of return of the jedi, and then frequently on BETA and VHS in subsequent years. probably the last time would've been in the early '90s. i've never seen the various "revisions" and have no interest in seeing them.

so it's kind of o_O for me to read above that other folks have never seen the original and/or didn't realize the "episode iv" thing was tagged on after the fact.

kids these days IIRC.

Lookee that, just in time:

http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars-the-phantom-menace-3d/

it's ironic that "star wars" was one of the first features chosen for the national film registry, since lucas has ensured in years since that even if the original film negative or projection prints are sitting in archives, nobody is going to show them to the public. i'd actually like to write a nice letter explaining how keeping the original version in circulation somehow would be a service to the study of film history, but i get a feeling he wouldn't reply or possibly would shit in a box and send it to me overnight.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Thursday, February 9, 2012 11:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

apparently the version in the registry is the 1997 or whatever "special edition." its kind of a disgrace.

It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.

i cannot believe he's trying to gaslight the hundreds of millions of people who saw han shoot first.

A billion dollars will feed any particular delusion you care to nurture or randomly devolve into.

i cannot believe he's trying to gaslight the hundreds of millions of people who saw han shoot first.

I know, it's like someone needs to tap him on the shoulder and say "um, actually, these are the droids we're looking for, thanks." But, as has been pointed out above, he has maneuvered himself into a position where this will never happen.

i've never seen the various "revisions" and have no interest in seeing them.

I've watched each of the revised versions of Star Wars once, on television, because I will never give him any more of my money.

The first time I saw American Graffiti I was too young to know it was made by the Man Who Made Star Wars, and was mostly concentrating on the fact that the bloke from Close Encounters AND the bloke from Happy Days were in it (how could such a thing be?). Maybe those people helped make it better? Or maybe it was just better for the same tired reason: because there were people around him then who would curb his worst excesses and keep him focused on the thing he originally said he wanted to do.

A good line in Peter Bradshaw's Guardian review of the re-release:

Watched again now, Phantom Menace seems flat rather than actually objectionable: there is something almost exotic in its intricate dullness, and characters like Jar-Jar are now too boring to be offensive.

apparently the version in the registry is the 1997 or whatever "special edition." its kind of a disgrace.

― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Friday, February 10, 2012 12:22 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well there isn't really a "registry" that holds actual copies of films, as far as i understand. it's just a way of establishing preservation priorities and to highlight the importance of film preservation and restoration in general. and since star was "inducted" in 1989, before any of the revisions, i think we can assume it's the original version that they had in mind.