Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Prequels' Art Director Doug Chiang Talks
inherent writes: "Recently, representatives of three fansites covering Westwood's upcoming release, Earth and Beyond Online had the opportunity to interview Doug Chiang, Art Director for the Star Wars prequels, and the designer of the spacecraft models in Earth and Beyond Online. Chiang speaks on topics like the differences between film and digital animation, advice for upcoming digital artists, and the now infamous Jar Jar Binks. The interview transcript is available at Earth and Beyond Portal"
He seems to be saying that the special effects type work of Video games is more difficult and detailed than the same type of work in Movies. I thought that was pretty interesting, as I would have though the opposite. Of course I never have been much of a game player.
But there have been many games based on movies, and they seem to be able to produce / create a game much faster than a movie. Also, I never have seen a video game budget approach the numbers they give for some of the big movies these days. (Yes, I realize they have to pay the actors and such)
It still seems to me that making a movie would be much more time consuming and diffucult than a video game. IF for no other reason than the fact that you have to mix the reality and digitally created scenes perfectly, whereas in a video game, it is all digital.
I guess Final Fantasy would be the best type of comparison, since it was all digitally generated.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
You're right on.
Lucas is the very definition of a wonder boy. He had a stunning success early on that he was never able to top in his later years. (The minor caveat to giving him that label is that he was not entirely from out of left field. American Graffiti was a decent film, especially for such an inexperienced director. But even with that considered, "Star Wars" was a shock to everybody.)
Fortunately for us, he hasn't seemed too interested in commiserating on his one success-- he's done since pretty much what it seems like he's wanted to do, from Indiana Jones to ILM to, uh, Willow. Unfortunately for us, he's insisted on continually tinkering with both our memories of that one success and the product itself for his own amusement and profit (by churning out lackluster sequels, except Empire, and by revising his work years later in "Special Editions" with his in-decline instincts as a filmmaker).
It's testament to the strength of the original movie that a generation was so impressed by it as to put up with the shitty prequels today. But by accepting these shitty prequels and giving Lucas our money,* we're condoning them, and so he's just going to continue on his current path. I don't know any kid that speaks of Episode I with awe in his voice. The recent movies are just not good enough to hold that sway, and the goodwill earned by the first two is all that's keeping the current series afloat. The returns are diminishing.
So what's next for Lucas? Episodes II and III, followed by Indiana Jones 4, of course. Yes, he did great work in his younger days, but these days it's pretty much all shoddy work built on the good craftsmanship of years past. It's too bad. If Star Wars hadn't been the monster success it was, maybe he would have still been challenged as a filmmaker in some way or another. But that's what happens when nobody around you says "no."
All IMO, of course. Please debate.
*I should disclose that I'm not even immune to the problems here, as I was actually watching my Episode I DVD when this story was posted. Sigh.
What does this mean? Normally, when I think of characters designed for this demographic, I think of something of the "heartthrob" type. If any character in the Phantom Menace was "for" 13 year old girls, it would probably be Ewan McGregor's Ben Kenobi.
If Jar Jar is supposed to appeal to any demographic, it probably be those people who appreciate slapstick humor: the very young, the perpetually immature, or those old enough to remember a time before other types of humor (e.g., irony, wordplay) were invented. Basically, anyone who likes Daffy Duck.
Personally, I thought he was great. But I would not expect any 13 year old girls to agree with me.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I think what I have read thus far is rubbish.
"Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.
Ok, so, does that mean, if you can compare The Empire in Star Wars to Hitler's Third Reich, that our Military Elites should NOT have acted to defend Jews or others in Europe unless and until evidence was provided of bodies and totalitarian abuses?
I never finished reading the entire article, as I am not wont to read much of anything written by some pretentious egalitarian fool.
I wonder if he is one of those "negotiation" people: For some folks, the time never arrives to fight to defend oneself, in the quest for "peace" and freedom from violence, some people would rather be destroyed: It's a good thing that people like that DO NOT have access to Industry, Military, or Government, for they would invite the enemy into our homes, give him our daughters, and acquiesce to his every whim until we are destroyed.
Long live elitism
Fuck David Brin
"The trade federation would have won, and the evil sith schemes would have prospered"
perfect, then maybe they wouldn't have killed off possibly the _best_ villian of all time after giving him 3 lines and about 3 minutes of screen. On the other hand, if jar jar wasn't there, i'm sure qui gon would have raised his hand and said "oh don't worry, the force will take care of everything". Then he would look like he was bored and falling asleep as they narrowly avoided danger and defeated the entire trade federation.
"i can never say no to anyone but you"
Are we reading the same piece? The main argument Brin made was that the Elitism of Star Wars is not something which he believes to be philosophically sound, while he sees Star Trek, and other Sci-fi, as the true liberator and expresser of the culture of the masses, being egalitarian in focus, rather than relying on the idea of an elite, which, even though it is ridiculous, I am surprised that he did not attack The Lord of the Rings. In the story, you have someone (frodo?(sorry, forgot the name as I am very ill right now)), who can be considered a commoner, part of the masses, whom, when required of him, rises to the occasion and does what is necessary, at great personal risk. This is of course the meat of all mythology and legend. The little hobbit wasn't really anyone special, but he rose to it and became more than he was. The Star Trek analogy has always irritated me, though I can best be described as a fan, I never did appreciate the sheer propaganda the show,(TNG,VOYAGER,DS9) used to get some sort of Egalitarian message across. I don't believe that we are all equal, I believe that equality is a dangerous myth without scientific or philosphical merit, and furthermore am frightened by those whom would so easily swallow such an apparent falsehood. Equity and Justice under the law, on the other hand, are exactly what we need more of, but don't try and objectify me by saying you are the same as me, cuz, brother, it ain't so!!
If you want to read a really stallar critique of Lucas and the Star Wars movies, check out this Salon article by David Brin. It was written after SW:TPM came out, and I think it does a great job of tearing Lucas apart >:) IMO, Lucas is basically a hack with a really high budget.
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.