Film Score Monthly
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   May 31, 2012 - 4:35 PM   
 By:   TM2-Megatron   (Member)

There are older and fouler things than Berman in the deep places of the 'net.

Mind you, while I didn't care for his breaking of a better-than-average streak of good episodes with Enterprise's fourth season, I've never had strong feelings about him one way or the other. I think I've only ever seen one or two interviews with him in passing on a DVD. He was in charge of Star Trek for quite a few years, and for much of that time it was reasonably enjoyable. They just never seemed to know what to do with the movies.

Any long-running franchise like Star Wars (or Trek, or Doctor Who, or anything else) that's prone to being cheesy is bound to hit especially bad patches. Who knows how long they'll last.

 Posted:   May 31, 2012 - 4:47 PM   
 By:   JSWalsh   (Member)

Dude, I`m just goofing around, I don`t know anything about Berman, just never liked his show and stopped watching, was only riffin` on Francis`s jab at me. He and I kinda antagonize each other but I like him because he fires back with wit and humor, and we or at least I don`t hold a grudge. He seems to know I detest most Trek but the fun is how me and Phelps are like the old bastards in the balcony on the Muppet Show laughing at Trek silliness, and in truth I just find most Trek and Trekkies silly and like to play cranky poster. Francis is capable of giving it back in humorous fashion--99% &f Trekkies azre incapable of such perspective and can`t figure out why they`re seen as hopeless social gnomes. And LeHah just hates me and doesn`t care but he`s an individual. Just don`t get so serious over a silly [and it is, we all like silly things, just admit it] show that some people make too much of. Like this post! [but I`m on med leave and the doc upped the pain meds you can see....] WOLVERINES!

 Posted:   May 31, 2012 - 4:55 PM   
 By:   TM2-Megatron   (Member)

Calling it Berman's show is probably enough to offend a lot of its fans, without having to add anything else, lol.

I don't think he ever reached the level of notoriety with his franchise's most hardcore fans as George Lucas has with his, but it was probably a close race.

I don't agree with the 99% figure, though. I know there are a lot of weirdos out there, but I've always held to the idea that the internet makes them appear more numerous than they are. Social misfits have always been more prominent on the internet. I think the majority of fans of these properties are just normal, non-vocal people.

If you judged by the internet alone, there'd be huge numbers of people up in arms in real life about the changes to Star Wars. But I don't think I've ever actually encountered anyone offline that even mentioned them, positively or negatively. Most people just don't care, and a lot probably wouldn't even be able to tell you which scenes are new (and as a result, probably aren't really clear on the history of the use of computer animation in film).

 Posted:   May 31, 2012 - 5:05 PM   
 By:   Tom Servo   (Member)

It boggles my mind so much that fans worked themselves into such a frenzy over George Lucas and his movies that they had a make a movie about their own problems. You know, I'm a big Star Wars fan, grew up with the Original Trilogy and still like the Prequel Trilogy as well and while there are some odd aspects Lucas changed in the OT for subsequent releases, I just don't gnash my teeth about it. I don't get the hate some people have for Lucas. He created Star Wars and Indiana Jones, which will far outlast anything any of us ever contributes to pop culture and he really doesn't have to do anything else to prove himself to audiences. And when he does, people still rail against him because the result somehow still doesn't meet whatever unknowable expectations they each cling to.

Good grief, everyone, just let it go. Don't crucify an artist for making art you don't like, just don't participate in it. Lucas built all of what he has from pretty much nothing, which is something we can all strive for in this country. If you don't like all the Star Wars movies, that's fine, it's no different than some people only enjoying the James Bond films that star Sean Connery. Maybe there are those of us who enjoy the rest!

 Posted:   May 31, 2012 - 7:47 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

There needs to be bounds of reason. What if every famous painter and sculptor in the world later defaced their own artwork after achieving great success in the arena of public opinion? Artwork that was reveared and loved by millions? What if the artists could and did put eyebrows on the Mona Lisa or arms on Venus?

The artist doesn't exist in their own bubble. Very few create art just for themselves. When an artist goes "public" they build a relationship between themselves and their admirers. Without a fan base their art would have no viable platform. Showing the world your work grants one notoriety and the chance to create another work of art. Shouldn't an artist respect the admirers of his works, and not so callously alter them? People are very nostalgic by nature.

The Lucas hating can so easily be avoided if he did one simple thing. Preserved the original cuts of the films and made them available to the public.

 Posted:   May 31, 2012 - 8:03 PM   
 By:   JSWalsh   (Member)

Solium, You state your point clearly and well, but the idea is utterly horrifying to me, as it would to any artist or creative person. Just because people like it doesn`t mean it is `theirs` just because a lot of people want that. Art is changed ll the time by artists, and often the original is altered in the process [Degas was found at least once retouching one of his paintings as it hung on the wall in a museum, and was intercepted by a guard]. This gets back to my earlier post about the need for people to let go of their attachment to things like Star Wars--if Lucas wants to destroy every negative or digital recording of his work, no one can or should be allowed to stop him, as long as he isn`t touching copies you or anyone else paid for. The meanings of these works have nothing at all to do with their existence as legally-owned objects by those who created them. If the world doesn`t like it? That`s tough.

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 3:42 AM   
 By:   Jim Phelps   (Member)

How come you guys didn't talk about this?

Because you don't have to step into a sewer to know it stinks.

We routinely skewer dragon53's entertainment news flashes with gleeful disgust, so I don't see why Saint George of Lucas can't be similarly commented upon.

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 4:05 AM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

How come you guys didn't talk about this?

Because you don't have to step into a sewer to know it stinks.

We routinely skewer dragon53's entertainment news flashes with gleeful disgust, so I don't see why Saint George of Lucas can't be similarly commented upon.

I don't think that's quite what LeHah was saying; I was under the impression he was making his own, similar sort of comment about not Lucas himself but about the fans "vs." him in the documentary. If that's the case, I'd say it's just as fair to criticize them as it is for them (or us) to criticize Lucas (they're putting their opinions out there into the public just as he is his work, after all).

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 4:57 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

We routinely skewer dragon53's entertainment news flashes with gleeful disgust, so I don't see why Saint George of Lucas can't be similarly commented upon.

Joe E summed it up well, and he's right.

I don't always agree with George - hell, I routinely disagree with myself on a lot of things I once did - but the hysterical levels upon which people dislike George Lucas is somewhere between impossible and embarrassing.

By a wide, wide margin - fans have been far worse to Star Wars than anything George Lucas may or may not have done with special editions or prequels or whatever. Star Wars wouldn't need things like the world's stupidest canon in the history of science fiction for why A-Wings appear in the Ewoks cartoon if fans weren't going around complaining about a simple mistake in the first place. The guy (see: people who are acting EXACTLY like Warlock's last post) saying 'look at this specifc error I found, therefore this story doesn't count!' is exactly the reason both fans and creators go back and retcon things in the first place.

Because people seemingly care about the Ewoks cartoon. (?!)

People that complain about how Lucas "raped" something (let me tell you, I will judge you and properly hang you verbally and morally for using such a disgusting term to bolster your indignation over a movie) are by and large the people who are having arguments over what the lightsabre colors mean, if Han Solo could win a fist fight with Count Dooku or want to know how many weapons Boba Fett has on his armor.

These people - and I make no bones about it - are assholes. The Star Wars community has created a fandom of people who are willing to burn down everything to prove their own petty ideas correctly and I cannot take to that kind of mentality.

PS: I do not hate JSWalsh. Come to think of it, I don't think I have any feelings on the matter?

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 5:37 AM   
 By:   JSWalsh   (Member)

Don`t mind me, they upped the codeine level yesterday and I only had this damned cell phone for company, who the hell knows what I posted yesterday. Who bought all these Justin Bieber cds, the hell am i gonna do with those? Anyway, yeah, I was so coded up I was dancing naked in the hallway with a nurse, and not only wasn`t he my type, I`m not even in a hospital. i have the friends of eddie coyle on yet again so no worries. as to the thread topic, jim, where you at, lucas is incessantly bashed in a `i hate my parents and am never talking to them again, and where`s my tuition and rent money you capitalist swine?` way. i wouldn`t pay a dime to see this stupid movie, but I WOULD pay to see GEORGE LUCAS VS. THE FANS, if he were honest and spoke his real feelings. Might do the guy some good. The whole Internet is an open forum for those immature, overly-entertained people who should go educate themselves and create their OWN films instead of just growing numb watching his and feeling entitled.

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 5:56 AM   
 By:   JSWalsh   (Member)

P.S. While I agree with LeHah`s assessment above, and admire Lucas`s genius, one thing I do not have for him is an ounce of sympathy for the picayune fan obssessiveness over his works. He feeds it when he should have dismissed it decades ago. Again I emphasize it is the fans who refuse to grow up who are responsible for their own lot in life, but Lucas saw a way to make money on their neurosis and took advantage of it, and SOUGHT it from the day he made sure he got the licensing on the original STAR WARS. He is a brilliant filmmaker, an incredible producer, and one of the most unflinchingly greedy people I`ve ever seen. That he approves of all the above-licensed Ewok worship and childishness is his right,but his being trapped in a moneymaking monster HE built is all on him. People as various as Doug Trumbull and Marlon Brando have passed on opportunities to just make money to pursue their own paths, so Lucas is nobody`s victim.

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 6:40 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

JSWalsh I totally agree legally George Lucas can do what ever he wants with his works. He can remove them from public consumption or change them to his delight. But I do think he is being disrespectful to the legions of fans whom originally embraced his creations.

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 6:55 AM   
 By:   JSWalsh   (Member)

Solium, There`s no doubt you`re correct about that, he is indeed disrespectful of his fans. The thing is, though, such a thing isn`t really an issue--I mean, he made a product, and his fans who pay for it have paid for the right to see or own a copy,, nothing else. I suspect his respect level for them would increase astronomically if they weren`t such suckers for all the garbage he puts out, just as I suspect artists who put out substandard product that DOESN`T sell may not like folks` not giving their money, but are forced to respect that their audience won`t put up with less than respectful treatment. Lucas is being a greedbag who takes advantage of his fans`s immaturity and neediness, but it`s on THEM to raise their standards and force him to man up.

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 7:04 AM   
 By:   TM2-Megatron   (Member)

I'm not sure it's really greed on Lucas' part. If money was really sole dictator of his actions, then surely releasing the theatrical cuts of the original trilogy would make him even more money than he's making now. I think, like it or not, Lucas simply prefers his new cuts and sees no reason to release the theatricals because he genuinely believes that they're inferior.

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 8:14 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

I truly wonder sometimes how many people, out of all the hordes who complain about Lucas' tinkering, have actually seen the original theatrical cut of "Star Wars".

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 8:36 AM   
 By:   Scott M (Oldsmith)   (Member)

Having seen the original films in theaters and enjoying them, I am on the fence on average regarding the tinkering. I actually like the new, updated effects that rid the films of the traveling mattes, transparencies and overall clunkiness. The original Star Wars looked dated two years after it came out, especially after John Dykstra improved on the effects when he did Battlestar Galactica. I also loved the enhanced snow speeder stuff in Empire, because seeing through the solid sets and models was distracting. The revised ending of Jedi with the new music and the clips of other planets made the film better. The Rancor finally looks good. I'm really not that bothered by Heyden Cristensen in the finale of Jedi either. Whatever.

The changes that bother me are those that aren't necessary or shouldn't have been necessary. Cutting back and forth to Vader taking his trip from Bespin to the Star Destroyer was completely unnecessary and ruined the pacing of that part of the film. The music was butchered in order to accommodate it. Cinematically, it was a bad choice that didn't serve the narrative (did people really not get that Vader's "bring my shuttle" meant he was going back to his ship?).

Adding Vader's "nooooo" was just cheesy. It was cheesy in Sith and it's more cheesy in Jedi. Especially since I figured the Sith version was the last gasp of Anakin before he fully became Vader. Jedi now seems to signal the return of Anakin, but again, it wasn't necessary. It took a very suspenseful and pivotal point in the story and made it laughable.

I fully support the artist's right to revise until "satisfied"(which he never is), but the changes I mentioned do not do anything positive and are superfluous. They are poorly thought out and bad cinematic decisions. I don't mind if he wants to smooth out rough continuity, that's fine. But some of this stuff just dumbs it all down a bit.

However, it's his work and I lose no sleep over it. The DVDs I have from a few years ago are fine. I would like to have the Blu-Rays because the picture clarity is wonderful. But since I prefer the earlier revised editions, why spend da money?

What does this have to do with the Paople vs Lucas. Nothing. :-)

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 8:53 AM   
 By:   JSWalsh   (Member)

Megaton, You`ve conflated two of my points--I think all the fan-feeding junk is a sign of his greed, I think he makes the changes in the movies for the reasons he says. ..... I agreed with the above points about the repairs and screwups of the movies, but ultimately if STAR WARS would be spoiled by its flaws, it would be nothing but a special effects flick, no more. The fussiness in Lucas is the iron-solid link that will keep him a slave to his ego AND his fans. Would CITIZEN KANE, KING KONG, THE WIZARD OF OZ, TEN COMMANDMENTS, FORBIDDEN PLANET and countless others be forgotten because of matte work that isn`t CGI flawless? It`s this fixation on the bottle instead of what it contains that has made infants of the post-STAR WARS movie audiences.

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 9:32 AM   
 By:   GreatGonzo   (Member)

The original Star Wars looked dated two years after it came out, especially after John Dykstra improved on the effects when he did Battlestar Galactica.

??? This ... I would need some sort of visual example of before I believe it ... BG improved on Star Wars? Seriously?

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 11:55 AM   
 By:   Scott M (Oldsmith)   (Member)

The original Star Wars looked dated two years after it came out, especially after John Dykstra improved on the effects when he did Battlestar Galactica.

??? This ... I would need some sort of visual example of before I believe it ... BG improved on Star Wars? Seriously?

In so far as ship movement and fluidity, yes. Group shots of Vipers and Cylon Raiders moved more individually, while the fighters in SW would see seen sliding across the screen in strict unison. Like they put three models on sticks and moved the camera to get all three in motion.

This is not a slight, SW pioneered a lot of that stuff and revolutionized photo effects. Anything done afterward would build on the prior accomplishments and enhance them. Dykstra was a genius and the effects are the one thing on BSG nobody ever had an issue with.

Dykstra left the series after Gun on Ice Planet Zero and stock footage was the norm. But while he was there, he did feature film quality stuff. The Viper and shuttle crashes in Gun were amazing. Still are.

The guys in ILM continued to improve and Empire blew away the films and shows before it.

 Posted:   Jun 1, 2012 - 2:53 PM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

I'd argue that Empire blew away all the ones that came after, too.

You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2018 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.