Originally posted by Altar[1stONE]
What about Peter Jackson or if only the great Stanley Kubrick
Kubrick died.... and well.. if he were still alive... he would make somethin far better and more inteligent than star wars.... he doesnt fit in this category... hes veri hi up.
Jackson would do a good job too.
Kubrick is over rated and would have commendered the whole production. We'd have a whole new story line by the end. As for Lucas' directing-Portman isn't that good to begin with. She WAS really good. Now I don't think she's very focused in general and it show in her work, she's always her. She never gets into character completely. That's why the only good scene she did in Clones was the picnic, because it was a very earthy conversation. I thought these actors liked to be challenged, but all they do is whine about blue screen. I've seen 6 and 7 year olds with toy lightsabers putting more guts to playing star wars than the actors in the movies. They can't IMAGINE whats around them? Isn't that what most of us did as little kids? I admit, if you're talking to someone who isn't there, that can be a pain. But complaining about a lack of scenery is dumb. Even when there scenery, its only complete to just past the edge of the cameras anyway. They have a bunch of lights and crew right next to them essentialy. Waaah! Blue screen! I think they just need to push themselves, thats how movies as bad as Hannibal are fun and totally watchable, because Hopkins got so into character that it was a joy to watch. No matter how bad the co-stars, setting, story, dialogue whatever, he made it work by figuring out his character on his own. By pushing himself. X-men wasn't all that great either when you look at the actual script, what made it work were the actors who really got into character. And don't tell me the star wars actors didn't have anything to prep with. Even for the actors who were playing new characters-you couldn't think of someone you know like that person and act like them? please. I understand it must be very hard to deal with all the effects, but it just comes down to effort.
Originally posted by mephistodesigns
Kubrick is over rated and would have commendered the whole production. We'd have a whole new story line by the end. As for Lucas' directing-Portman isn't that good to begin with. She WAS really good. Now I don't think she's very focused in general and it show in her work, she's always her. She never gets into character completely. That's why the only good scene she did in Clones was the picnic, because it was a very earthy conversation. I thought these actors liked to be challenged, but all they do is whine about blue screen. I've seen 6 and 7 year olds with toy lightsabers putting more guts to playing star wars than the actors in the movies. They can't IMAGINE whats around them? Isn't that what most of us did as little kids? I admit, if you're talking to someone who isn't there, that can be a pain. But complaining about a lack of scenery is dumb. Even when there scenery, its only complete to just past the edge of the cameras anyway. They have a bunch of lights and crew right next to them essentialy. Waaah! Blue screen! I think they just need to push themselves, thats how movies as bad as Hannibal are fun and totally watchable, because Hopkins got so into character that it was a joy to watch. No matter how bad the co-stars, setting, story, dialogue whatever, he made it work by figuring out his character on his own. By pushing himself. X-men wasn't all that great either when you look at the actual script, what made it work were the actors who really got into character. And don't tell me the star wars actors didn't have anything to prep with. Even for the actors who were playing new characters-you couldn't think of someone you know like that person and act like them? please. I understand it must be very hard to deal with all the effects, but it just comes down to effort.
Ha! come on! make some sense! Why do you say that kubrick is over rated?? have you seen all his films?? i have! Have you seen space oddyssey?! i bet you consider it boring, but its the best sci-fi movie ever made... look at the space scenes that was done 10 years before star wars in 1968! and it looks far more real than any star wars films! he didnt rely on special effects so people could jerk off! He used the effects to help him create some sort of mood or feeling, star wars is just eye candy. And being a good director also means choosing the right people to make your characters. Youre saying that portman is not giving her best, thats the directors responsibility not hers. Kubrick pushed his actors over the limit in order to get what he wanted. He has to give the actors trust and knowledge of the characters they are going to play? how can an actor stand with such bad dialog?? it impossible. In response of what you said that the lack of scenery is a dumb thing.... man... are you nuts? do you know anything about acting??! the first thing an actor needs is reference, a set... you tell an actor that youre standing on blue but pretend that youre in the beach the actor would feel out of place and confused.... is really hard. He need that reference because when you act you interact with the actor as much as your sorroundings... pay attention to any film in a talking scene... actors walk around the set... sit down.... takes a glass of watter, looks trough the window to the purning rain. put his hands on a chair... they interact with the sorroundings every single time, that gives emotion, a sense of deepness and physical pressense. Contact is a very important thing in acting... look at star wars... actors look stiff... standing all the time... they might look at a window... but you dont see that glow in their eyes.. just because they cant interact with something that ISNT there!
another thing is that when you have a live set... you can improvise when youre at location and actors feel free to interact with every advantage on the set to give richness to the scene and the character. With blue you dont have this freedom, you dont know what objects are there because they havent been built yet... You have to think of all that things befoe you shoot in order to insert them in.... but improvisation is almost impossible.... Because as and actor you have no CONTROL over your time and place. Do you know what blocking is? blocking is when you select where the characters are going trough the frame so focus lights and other technical issues could be restricted to them. By this, you start limiting your actors... and for every specific blocking you have to give the actor a GOOD reason to go there... you cant say go there because the focus is pushed to that position. You tell them to go there because you want them to isolate him from the other character or in order to give them something to drink to give motion to the scene. With blue its harder because you have to know these things by hand because those things are not physically there. So the actors performance is sacrificed because of thins... whats more important? the characters or the eye candy? who do you want to believe real? the characters or the alien extras?? why does lucas spend like 4 or 6 months to shoot the actors and then 2 1/2 years for effects?? does this tells you something? His giving all his efforts to the eye candy and its obvious that the acting left second plane on his movies.
The directors job is to DIRECT the actors and give them as much reference as possible so they can create a character form those directions you give them and make the character believable. Now dont tell me that portman is not giving enough for the movie... why did they cast her huh? and whats the difference between luc benson director of Leon the professional and lucas that he manneged to direct wonderfully portman when she was 12 years old.
Oh! and one of the only real sets in star wars was that picnic scene! hahahaha it was real but look at the genieues of you director mr. Lucas! he picked one of the most clichéd locations in hollywood history, following by the rolling around with anakind and padme trough the grass... come on.....
what about the firy scene with the it would destroy us dialog what kind of crap is that?!
Though I don't want to bad-mouth GL ((I think he's a genius)) I agree with LucasSucks partially.
I thought Natalie & Hayden did very well considering their dialogue. I agree with mephisto, the meadow was a great scene for them...but the other scenes, well, the dialogue was really hard to listen to. When I first saw the film I thought it was incredibly romantic...but after seeing it a few more times I discovered that the two of them were producing the romantic affect, NOT the dialogue. Their lines were very hard to deliver smoothly, naturally, romantically.
Heaps of people will come on here and argue that the acting sucked, that's your chioce...I just reckon it was the dialogue that tarred their romance story, not the acting.
Originally posted by Lyn
Though I don't want to bad-mouth GL ((I think he's a genius)) I agree with LucasSucks partially.
I thought Natalie & Hayden did very well considering their dialogue. I agree with mephisto, the meadow was a great scene for them...but the other scenes, well, the dialogue was really hard to listen to. When I first saw the film I thought it was incredibly romantic...but after seeing it a few more times I discovered that the two of them were producing the romantic affect, NOT the dialogue. Their lines were very hard to deliver smoothly, naturally, romantically.
Heaps of people will come on here and argue that the acting sucked, that's your chioce...I just reckon it was the dialogue that tarred their romance story, not the acting.
Good that you agree.. but if the dialog is bad, this sacrifices the performances too.... because they cant get into the character. one thing is tied to another..... i agree that natalie and hayden could have done better even with the bad dialog... but its part of the direction lucas is turning his interest in... technical stuff... Genius is a very different thing than being inteligent.... lucas is very inteligent... but he doesnt know how to show them.... he knows a hell lot about history, mithology and a lot of other things wich is a knowledge in envy him for having... but it makes me angry knowing that all this goes to waste.... star wars has so much potential and it has been exploded so poorly in the movies. Its really a shame.... genius would be chaging cinema for ever because the way you develop story telling... wich is not the case.... the way you shoot your scenes witch is not the case in star wars... the narrative... witch obviously is not the case... the only thing that predominates and makes a huge change in cinema in star wars are the special effects wich are not in the hands of lucas... its in the hands of many other talented people who knows the medium and understand it even more than lucas.... im sure of it...
Kubrick was a genius because he changed the typical way of making story telling, he shot his movies with different techniques never used before, they were also innovative and intelligent... Tarantino also changed the way movies are told.... movies like that are the ones i prefer to see over star wars.
Ill agree with mephistodesigns back there about the whole blue screen thing. X-men was a prime example, you could tell that the actors were fully enjoying themselves playing thier parts and really got into the characters shoes. Whearas in star wars they seem to have trouble using their imagination !! That aint the directors fault, thats simply bad acting. No more.
thanks! one could argue the locations in Star Wars are more complicated than X-men, but thats just the thing. Padme's apartment may be thousands of stories up, but its an apartment, I know the actors have seen apartments. When reacting to the Geonosian arena, just watch Sparticus and Gladiator to get an idea of what you're reacting to. And, as Lucas pointed out in the Clones commentary, he doesn't want to to overreact as all of this seemingly fantastic world is their everyday boring world. That's why the Anakin and Obi-wan were supposed to look relatively calm chasing Zam through Coruscant. Even Anakin jumping out of the speeder was supposed to be "just doing their jobs". I think what really screws up the acting, above all else, is the stress of being IN Star Wars. Had they made these back in the day, whoever was playing the parts wouldn't have to deal with 20 years of build up and fans getting specific pictures of characters and events in there heads. Even a lot of the actors (everyone but Portman) has spoken of playing star wars as kids. So the ones who are into it and respect it, probably have a lot of underlying stress as to how to play these characters without pissing everyone off.
Originally posted by Lucas Sucks!
Good that you agree.. but if the dialog is bad, this sacrifices the performances too.... because they cant get into the character. one thing is tied to another..... i agree that natalie and hayden could have done better even with the bad dialog... but its part of the direction lucas is turning his interest in... technical stuff... Genius is a very different thing than being inteligent.... lucas is very inteligent... but he doesnt know how to show them.... he knows a hell lot about history, mithology and a lot of other things wich is a knowledge in envy him for having... but it makes me angry knowing that all this goes to waste.... star wars has so much potential and it has been exploded so poorly in the movies. Its really a shame.... genius would be chaging cinema for ever because the way you develop story telling... wich is not the case.... the way you shoot your scenes witch is not the case in star wars... the narrative... witch obviously is not the case... the only thing that predominates and makes a huge change in cinema in star wars are the special effects wich are not in the hands of lucas... its in the hands of many other talented people who knows the medium and understand it even more than lucas.... im sure of it...
Kubrick was a genius because he changed the typical way of making story telling, he shot his movies with different techniques never used before, they were also innovative and intelligent... Tarantino also changed the way movies are told.... movies like that are the ones i prefer to see over star wars.
I do understand what you mean. I don't really takes HEAPS of notice of the way scenes are shot, at what angles etc...but there are times in SW where I think more effort has gone into the location/effects than the story and the dialogue.
Still luv 'em though!! 😉 😛 💃