Episode 3

[HaemishM]

Being that's it Lucas, he probably has a CGI-ed hologram of himself on set directing.

[schild]

Being that's it Lucas, he probably has a CGI-ed hologram of himself on set directing.

I can just see his little image saying, "Samuel L. Jackson, you're our only hope!"

[Riggswolfe]

You know, one thing I wonder, how does Lucas' record as a director compare to other famous directors?

So far he's done..umm..8 movies I know of.

The Star Wars movies
American Graffiti
THX-1138

Of those only THX-1138 wasn't hugely successful money-wise for its time.

Say what you want, but the man knows how to make money. I doubt even Spielberg has his success rate.

Edit: 6 movies. He didn't direct Empire and Return. I must go flog myself now for forgetting such easy Star Wars trivia if only for a few seconds.

[stray]

The one area that makes no sense to me "The Architect reveals there were previous iterations of the Matrix that failed, and even previous Ones like Neo – and a bloody cycle of destruction and renewal of the Matrix, Zion and humanity is inescapable." I can understand multiple iterations of the Matrix, given it's a programmed illusion. But the cycle of Zion/human destruction -- I guess they're saying that the machines always wipe out the real Zion, reload a new Matrix, and then Zion crops up again after a while, kind of like fire ant mounds reappear after you think you've gotten rid of the ants. OK. I guess I get it now.

Basically, Zion and the One are part of a project to get humanity's head out of it's ass and end the war. Zion is always left to rebuild because it serves a larger plan -- to give humanity hope for the "One".

Thing is, the "One" was purposely designed by the machines, in the hopes that he would bridge the gap between the two sides of the war. He's just as much a Messiah to them as he is to humans. It's just that he keeps failing to carry out the job...for both sides. So it's wipe, reboot, and try again.

Until the Neo version of the "One" came along.

[schild]

You're right. Spielberg has a much HIGHER success rate. Off the top of my head:

The Indiana Jones Trilogy
E.T.
Jaws
The Color Purple
Hook
Jurassic Park
Empire of the Sun
Schindler's List
Catch me if you Can
Minority Report
The Terminal

and soon to be added:
War of the Worlds

[Riggswolfe]

I wouldn't call Hook or the Terminal successes. I love Hook but it pretty much flopped. Terminal sorta disappeared off the screen without a ripple.

Spielberg is more prolific, but what is his success ratio? Sounds like you might be right and he may have a higher one but I'm too lazy to do the math. Heh.

[Riggswolfe]

Basically, Zion and the One are part of a project to get humanity's head out of it's ass and end the war. Zion is always left to rebuild because it serves a larger plan -- to give humanity hope for the "One".

Thing is, the "One" was purposely designed by the machines, in the hopes that he would bridge the gap between the two sides of the war. He's just as much a Messiah to them as he is to humans. It's just that he keeps failing to carry out the job...for both sides. So it's wipe, reboot, and try again.

Until the Neo version of the "One" came along.

I had totally forgotten about the whole experiment angle. I read an awesome essay about it one time, I wish I knew where to find it. It gives a whole other spin to the movies. (Essentially what you just summarized but in alot more detail.)

[schild]

I wouldn't call Hook or the Terminal successes. I love Hook but it pretty much flopped. Terminal sorta disappeared off the screen without a ripple.

The Terminal made $77M. I guarantee you that's a profit. It made $175M Worldwide.
Hook made $177M in America - that's a profit of $107M on a $70M budget. Worldwide it pulled in $300M.

Steven Spielberg does not create losers.

[Riggswolfe]

Glad to hear Hook did so well. I loved that movie. (Of course, I like the Peter Pan stories, the recent version was awesome.)

[Shockeye]

I wouldn't call Hook or the Terminal successes. I love Hook but it pretty much flopped. Terminal sorta disappeared off the screen without a ripple.

The Terminal made $77M. I guarantee you that's a profit. It made $175M Worldwide.
Hook made $177M in America - that's a profit of $107M on a $70M budget. Worldwide it pulled in $300M.

Steven Spielberg does not create losers.

$77M US is not a profit. Advertising budget on big-ass movies can rival the cost to make them. Terminal had a large budget.

Domestic Total Gross: $77,872,883

Production Budget: $60 million

Est. Marketing Costs: $35 million

That's for The Terminal, care of Box Office Mojo.

[schild]

So far he's done..umm..8 movies I know of.

American Graffiti

<snip>

Just to note:

American Grafitti made $115,000 on it's first release. And made $395,549 on it's re-release in 2004.

So Mr. Lucas's ratio just went down.

If we want to put it on the chopping block: Bryan Singer is doing better than Lucas. Sam Raimi is doing MUCH better considering how little his movies cost (well, pre-spiderman). And we haven't even gotten into the BIG names yet: Kubrick, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Fellini, Romero, Coppola, etc.

[schild]

Blah blah blah.

There are reasons I included world wide gross.

[Riggswolfe]

I had always heard American Grafitti was highly successful and responsible for Lucas being able to do Star Wars

[schild]

I had always heard American Grafitti was highly successful and responsible for Lucas being able to do Star Wars

Pick up this book. The whole story is in there. I could quote it but the books in my car. American Zoethrope had problems to the core.

[ahoythematey]

Oh, clipped from IMDB:

Francis Ford Coppola suggested Christopher Neil to George Lucas to be the dialogue coach. Lucas said that given the emotional intensity of Revenge of the Sith, and the fact that he rarely has time to converse with the actors, it would be ideal for someone else to be there to get the strongest performances possible.

Yeah, I mean, after all, why the fuck would a director want to converse with actors or anything?

I find it particularly interesting that one would bitch about Lucas hiring a dialogue coach for Ep3 after people threatened to belt-sand his balls for the ep2 dialogue.  I mean, gee, it sounds to me like hiring a dialogue coach would imply wanting to give the fans better dialogue than he himself is capable of getting out of his actors, but I guess that goes against the most holy of commandments, "Thou shalt hate New Star Wars."

[Sobelius]

Oh, clipped from IMDB:

Francis Ford Coppola suggested Christopher Neil to George Lucas to be the dialogue coach. Lucas said that given the emotional intensity of Revenge of the Sith, and the fact that he rarely has time to converse with the actors, it would be ideal for someone else to be there to get the strongest performances possible.

Yeah, I mean, after all, why the fuck would a director want to converse with actors or anything?

I find it particularly interesting that one would bitch about Lucas hiring a dialogue coach for Ep3 after people threatened to belt-sand his balls for the ep2 dialogue.  I mean, gee, it sounds to me like hiring a dialogue coach would imply wanting to give the fans better dialogue than he himself is capable of getting out of his actors, but I guess that goes against the most holy of commandments, "Thou shalt hate New Star Wars."

Heavens no. It just finally confirms what most of us have known all along -- that Lucas doesn't (can't?) direct his actors. This one small news item has finally answered that most puzzling question for me: how on earth does Lucas get such lousy performances from some actors? Now I know the answer: he doesn't have time to talk to them.

I don't hate Star Wars or even New Star Wars. As someone who enjoys well-done big budget entertainment, I'm angry that under Lucas' direction and vision the Star Wars films consistently underachieve except in the visual spectacle department. And even that one quality is eluding them nowadays. The LOTR trilogy, theatrical releases, DVD release and especially the DVD extras, show what people who are passionate about filmmaking can achieve. LOTR could have so easily been about *product*  and marketing. It had that, but that was secondary to the filmmaking. In Star Wars, the product comes first, IMHO. I began to see that when, at age 17 I watched ROTJ and felt insulted first by the muppet band in Jabba's place and then by the Ewok-cum-teddy bears. As a 39 year old adult, I'm angry that for all of the talent and time and money spent on Eps 1-3, the results are just emotionally underwhelming, narratively insipid and difficult to sit through more than one time.

[Samprimary]

Backing up the tangent somewhat, I thought the dark side created seemingly posessive control of an individual. How if a jedi slips up even a little bit, then they get carried out of control and are subverted and turn evil.

I think after Anakin chokes the fuck out of Amidala & kills 'er, or whatever is going to happen, he's going to become a puppet of the dark side. And thusly a puppet of Palpatine.

[eldaec]

Oh, clipped from IMDB:

Francis Ford Coppola suggested Christopher Neil to George Lucas to be the dialogue coach. Lucas said that given the emotional intensity of Revenge of the Sith, and the fact that he rarely has time to converse with the actors, it would be ideal for someone else to be there to get the strongest performances possible.

Yeah, I mean, after all, why the fuck would a director want to converse with actors or anything?

I find it particularly interesting that one would bitch about Lucas hiring a dialogue coach for Ep3 after people threatened to belt-sand his balls for the ep2 dialogue.  I mean, gee, it sounds to me like hiring a dialogue coach would imply wanting to give the fans better dialogue than he himself is capable of getting out of his actors, but I guess that goes against the most holy of commandments, "Thou shalt hate New Star Wars."

The point is, he's looking to coach the actors when he should be looking to coach the damn script.

Anakin was the only significant character in episode 2 who needed acting lessons.

Ewan Macgregor should have got an oscar for managing to make Obiwan look that good with only that script to work with.

[eldaec]

I think after Anakin chokes the fuck out of Amidala & kills 'er, or whatever is going to happen, he's going to become a puppet of the dark side. And thusly a puppet of Palpatine.

Leia knew her mother. (See RotJ, ewok village speech to Luke about the beautiful sad mother)

But some variation on this theme could well make sense.

[Big Gulp]

Spielberg is more prolific, but what is his success ratio? Sounds like you might be right and he may have a higher one but I'm too lazy to do the math. Heh.

Well, "success ratio" is a difficult thing to quantify, unless you're going to go the pure money route.  Kubrick was one of our greatest directors, but the movie that did the best for him was Spartacus; his only big budget movie and something he vowed he'd never do again.

Orson Welles was a box office flop, yet he made Citizen Kane.  Scorsese hasn't had too much success, but again, one of our greatest directors.  Spielberg is interesting because he's able to do so many thematically different movies; drama, war, comedy, sci-fi, you name it.  Of course, he's got his own problems (not knowing how to END movies), but he definitely combines artistry with commercial success better than any director whose ever lived.

[schild]

Scorsese hasn't had too much success, but again, one of our greatest directors.

If you look at Scorcese track record, he's largely terrible. Not just "unsuccessful" in the "big movie sense" but also just outright bad. He's another product of that film school era, so maybe it hsould be unsurprising. I mean 2 amazing directors from that period (Spielberg and Coppola) is one thing, but 3? Now we're reaching. Really though, much as I love some of Scorcese's shit. He sucks, bad. And I'd never noticed before.

[Big Gulp]

Really though, much as I love some of Scorcese's shit. He sucks, bad. And I'd never noticed before.

Bullshit.  Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, King of Comedy, Goodfellas.  All classic, fabulous movies.

Shit, even his "cash-in" movies aren't at all bad; Casino and Cape Fear were both good movies.  His latest "epic" movies like Gangs of New York and The Aviator, while not up to his earlier stuff, aren't bad either while still having their flaws.  Fuck, I even like Sense and Sensibility if you took it for what it is; a gilded age costume drama.

[stray]

Really though, much as I love some of Scorcese's shit. He sucks, bad. And I'd never noticed before.

Bullshit.  Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, King of Comedy, Goodfellas.  All classic, fabulous movies.

Shit, even his "cash-in" movies aren't at all bad; Casino and Cape Fear were both good movies.  His latest "epic" movies like Gangs of New York and The Aviator, while not up to his earlier stuff, aren't bad either while still having their flaws.  Fuck, I even like Sense and Sensibility if you took it for what it is; a gilded age costume drama.

What he said. Don't even go there schild.

Don't forget After Hours and Last Temptation as well. And Kundun is another "good for what it is" type of flick.

Seriously, his only really bad films were New York, New York and Bringing Out the Dead.

edit: DePalma would be someone from the "film school era" who I think sucks more often not. But Scorsese? Not even close, man.

[Paelos]

Gangs of New York was a travesty saved only by the performance of Daniel Day Lewis. It played so fast and loose with reality and history that it lost all meaning to me by the end.

[stray]

Gangs of New York was a travesty saved only by the performance of Daniel Day Lewis. It played so fast and loose with reality and history that it lost all meaning to me by the end.

We're talking "suck" here. Lucas territory. Gangs of New York wasn't all that great, I admit, but it'is not a "travesty". Stop exaggerating.

[Ralphie]

Backing up the tangent somewhat, I thought the dark side created seemingly posessive control of an individual. How if a jedi slips up even a little bit, then they get carried out of control and are subverted and turn evil.

I think after Anakin chokes the fuck out of Amidala & kills 'er, or whatever is going to happen, he's going to become a puppet of the dark side. And thusly a puppet of Palpatine.

The Dark side is about an unmitigated ambition. That is why the master is constantly seeking to replace his apprentice, and the apprentice is constantly looking for someone to help him overthrow the master. It's not a form of mystical control, he is just driven by his own lust for greater power. Additionally, the quasi-political talk in AotC between Anakin and Amidala points out that Anakin desires to bring order to the galaxy, which is precisely what he proposes to Luke in ESB. To end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy, ruling together as father and son.

--Ralphie

[ahoythematey]

I always equated succumbing to the dark side of the force as something similar to heroin addiction, in that after the initial thrill goes away and it becomes a part of you, you both hate and love it simultaneously, and very little will sway your gravitation towards the ritual.



Ralphie, for the love of God, please change your image.  It is starting to creep me out.

[HaemishM]

Scorsese is for the most part, an overrated director, as is Coppola. I've not seen one movie by Coppola that I didn't think was mediocre, at best. Yes, the Godfather's were hopelessly mediocre, as was Apocalypse Now, his best movie.

Scorsese's best was Good Fellas. Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Casino are watchable if unspectacular. Last Temptation I have to see to really make a determination one way or the other. Everything else... /meh. Every director has bad movies, even the best. Kubrick had Eyes Wide Shut, an absolute piece of cinematic monkey ass. Spielberg has had a number of not so good efforts, such as The Terminal. Lucas has had a lot more bad than good. The one movie he directed that was decent was Star Wars. Empire was good precisely because he didn't have total control over it. The others suffer greatly from his touch.

[stray]

My God, there is no end to the hate around here. Raging Bull and Taxi Driver "unspectacular"? You're insane.

[ahoythematey]

That is absolute bullshit, Haemish.  I'd be in agreement if you had said Pt. 3 was mediocre at best, but when you start including Godfather pt.1 and pt.2, I start questioning whether or not you actually have taste.  The first two are, simply put, awesome.  They were extremely faithful to the book in both storylines and tone, and the book itself is excellent.

I know it's cool and all to hate what's popular and sacred no matter the merit of it, but jesus, I'm still surprised at such a thing.

[HaemishM]

Yes, yes I am. I don't hate Scorsese, I just don't get why people think he is so amazing. I think people like Darren Arnofsky, Robert Rodriguez and Christopher Nolan are better directors.

EDIT: Same goes for the Godfather movies. /meh. They just don't elicit any specific emotion from me, other than boredom. I've never read the book, and if it's a faithful translation, great. Brando and Pacino did good jobs with their parts, I just don't think the movie or the story is all that spectacular. Solid, but unspectacular. I also don't think Gus Van Sant is all that. I compare Scorsese and Coppola to Ridley Scott. Scott has had some fantastic movies (Blade Runner, Legend, Alien), some good but unspectacular movies (Gladiator, BlackHawk Down), and some absolute shite (Thelma and Louise, Hannibal).

Seriously, even Rodriguez has had his bad moments: The Faculty, Once Upon a Time in Mexico; his good if not spectacular moments: Spy Kids, and his brilliant moments: El Mariachi, Desperado and hopefully, Sin City.

Scorsese and Coppola are better directors than say Oliver Stone or Clint Eastwood. But that ain't saying much.

[stray]

Yes, yes I am. I don't hate Scorsese, I just don't get why people think he is so amazing. I think people like Darren Arnofsky, Robert Rodriguez and Christopher Nolan are better directors.

Those guys are great too, but they'd tell you themselves that you're out of your mind, and burn their own films before they even considered dogging Taxi Driver or Raging Bull...Or Godfather 1 and 2 for that matter.

[Mortriden]

Not to show my Star Wars geekdom too much, but a ways up someone mentioned that Vader gave the order to commence primary ignition.  That is incorrect.  The order was given by Tarkin in both cases; for the destruction of Aldeeran and the attempt on Yavin.

[ahoythematey]

I think people like Darren Arnofsky, Robert Rodriguez and Christopher Nolan are better directors.

Yes, he certainly has proven that he stands above Scorsese with two(2) releases under his belt.

Pi was good.

[Murgos]

He picked El Mariachi above Apocalypse Now?  So, like the whole hunt into the darkness of the soul thing just kind of passed you by in favor Antonio Banderas in tight pants?  The journey through the looking glass that is the trip up the river didn't impress you as much as a guitar case that fires rockets?

You sir, are on crack.