Slashdot Mirror


Lack of Technology Puts Star Wars Series On Hold

adeelarshad82 writes "It was back in 2007 when we first heard about George Lucas making a live-action TV series focusing on characters from Star Wars. Almost four years later, it seems the idea of ever seeing this live-action show is still living in a galaxy far, far away. In a recent interview, George Lucas mentioned that the technology to produce the show in a cost-effective way doesn't exist yet, and that the cost of producing an episode is about ten times of what it should be."

309 comments

  1. Funny by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny how other Science Fiction series manage to incorporate all the special effects they need to tell a story without blowing the bank's budget. Apparently George wants movie-grade FX on a TV budget.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And of course there are ongoing sci-fi shows because their budget requirements are quite low..

      Oh wait...

    2. Re:Funny by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 2

      The Canadian-made SGU had movie-grade FX on a TV budget (it cost $2.5mil per episode according to Robert Carlyle, the main actor on the show). SGU's FX were the best ever on TV (so far). Just check on Netflix "The Greater Good" episode to see the amount of detail and craftsmanship that went on the FX. But I think Lucas' problem is that he wants to do the FX via ILM, which is an expensive company to work with, even if he owns it. The answer is to go off shore for FX. Either Canada, or even South America.

    3. Re:Funny by webdog314 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, other Science Fiction series have actual plots and don't rely on special effects tricks to hold your attention.

    4. Re:Funny by evildarkdeathclicheo · · Score: 1

      In other words, it's the polar opposite of BSG, which featured character development in lieu of special effects. Yay.

    5. Re:Funny by ginbot462 · · Score: 2

      And dialog. And they leave out 1:30 hours worth of CSPAN (in Space!!!)

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    6. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Lack of technology" didn't stop Lucas in 1977. WTF. Lamest. Excuse. Ever.

    7. Re:Funny by morari · · Score: 1

      Apparently George wants movie-grade FX on a TV budget.

      Maybe I haven't been watching the right films, but I don't think Lucas has ever been concerned with film-grade F/X...

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    8. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure that the costs of SGU production played some part in the show being canceled - certainly wasn't because it wasn't as good as most of the crap SyFy pushes.

      And I wonder how much Canada subsidized the production of the show (if it was), they've done that for shows in the past.

      Frankly, with what we saw with EP1 ->3 - this probably is a blessing.

    9. Re:Funny by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      The Canadian-made SGU had movie-grade FX on a TV budget (it cost $2.5mil per episode according to Robert Carlyle, the main actor on the show).

      Syfi (SciFi) cancelled Farscape despite its popularity citing cost as the main factor. Farscape was 1.2-1.5 Mil per episode. Stargate SG1 had a per episode budget of ~1.3 Mil until exchange rates flip flopped on them and it shot up to ~2 Mil and subsequently got cancelled (OK they were winding down anyway). You say SGU had a budget of 2.5 Mil and it has now also been cancelled. I'm sensing a trend. Maybe if the Ghost Hunters and Wrestlers insisted on more money per episode we would get some of these shows back?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    10. Re:Funny by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 1

      Actually, SGU at $2.5mil was cheap. Maybe not as cheap as SyFy wanted it to be, but it's cheaper than the average US show, which costs $3mil per episode these days. And that's the average price. Some network shows go up to $4 mil per episode. Cable shows are usually cheaper. "Mad Men" costs $2.5mil per episode too btw (started at $2.3mil in 2008 according to NYTimes).

    11. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What FX? You mean the (yes, well-designed) sets (suits, bridge, space ships), occasional sparks, and Poser default blue aliens? ;)

      I found the show to lack a lot in visuals. Always the same boring corridors, rooms, and space shots. With the occasional "planet" mission on what was obviously just a patch of nature behind their sets with a filter over it. ;)
      Yet, I forgave them, because I know they had little viewership and probably couldnâ(TM)t afford big-budget stuff.

      But the worst, and the core problem, were the stories. Apart from them being utterly boring for the whole first season, stretched out beyond what I could have imagined, they always focused on the US propaganda narrative of "Oh, there are evil terrorists^WCylons^Waliens posing a constant threat via blowing up things and capturing people, so let's rape all moral standards and create a dictatorship!â.
      Seriously: They had the head guy strangle and murder someone with his bare hands, and then showed for weeks, how right and good that was. It was disgusting!
      And a blindingly obvious analogy.

      The problem: If you show that narrative too often, people believe in this reasoning in reality too. And think that's how reality actually is.

      Conclusion: http://www.zpub.com/un/chomsky.html

    12. Re:Funny by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why he can't just release the show now, and then fix it in syndication when future technology lets him tell the story the way he always wanted to.

    13. Re:Funny by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Or he can just fire the screenwriters. It's not like Star Wars has actually seen any benefit of good dialogue (with the exception, of course, of Episode V and the Emperor-Vader-Luke scenes in Episode VI).

      I don't understand the point of the series anyways. Just make more movies. You'll make shitloads more doing that than you will with TV series. The prequels already proved that Star Wars, whatever its deficiencies will draw in ten year old fanboys just as easily as forty year old fanboys. The franchise seems pretty much bullet proof in that regard. I guarantee you if Lucas were to throw out a new Star Wars trinity with 3D, regardless of any character crossover from the older films or not, it will equal if not top out Avatar.

      Star Wars is a space opera. Hour long episodes will just make it seem like an overwrought hi-tech version of the original Battlestar Galactica series. Star Wars needs the space that 240 minutes can deliver.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Funny by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yes, but he was so pained by having to have Han shoot first due to technical limitations. Only in the 2000s did he have the technology to do a crappy digital effect of Han Solo's head moving at faster than the speed of light to dodge the shot. Or such wonders as Han being digitally altered to walk over Jabba's tail which makes him look like some weird marionette. Just think of how pained Lucas was back in 1977 to not have the wonders of such "great" SFX shots available to him.

    15. Re:Funny by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      How much did it cost them to make Red Dwarf, particularly the earlier series, before Rob Grant let, take to make? That still stands, in my opinion, as probably one of the best SciFi TV series ever made, and some of the best episodes (like Polymorph) were made in the goddamned warehouse.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Funny by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Meesa thinking you don't like Senator Jar Jar! Meesa gonna turn to de dark side and whoop your ass!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Funny by eepok · · Score: 1

      Not exactly, but Sci Fi shows are rarely cut for costs. It's always ratings. And those ratings depend on day/time slots.

    18. Re:Funny by toastar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, SGU at $2.5mil was cheap. Maybe not as cheap as SyFy wanted it to be, but it's cheaper than the average US show, which costs $3mil per episode these days. And that's the average price. Some network shows go up to $4 mil per episode. Cable shows are usually cheaper. "Mad Men" costs $2.5mil per episode too btw (started at $2.3mil in 2008 according to NYTimes).

      Maybe that's why they couldn't afford anyone who could act.

    19. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a screenshot from the said SGU episode: http://i.gateworld.net//gallery/albums/uni_season2/207-TheGreaterGood/screencaps/sgu_207_0205.jpg

      SGU is one of the dumbest "sci-fi" shows on TV and it's graphics are pathetic... You're completely insane if you think it has good graphics compared to lets say Firefly, or a 2 year old playing with crayons.

    20. Re:Funny by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it was worth skimping on the steadycam for special effects. I can't stand watching it even though I enjoyed the other Stargate series. (Might be an issues with the god damn soap opera acting and dialogue but that's for another topic.)

    21. Re:Funny by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'd be pretty impressed seeing those graphics in a computer game. On TV? Not so much.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:Funny by Marillion · · Score: 2

      I don't know what the going rate per second of CGI is, but George turned many of his actors in Episodes 2 and 3 into digital marionettes. George doesn't trust actors. He was blending parts of multiple shots (use Aniken from shot 6 and Padmé from shot 7) to form a single final scene of them about to kiss. This is ridiculous. There's a reason Hayden Christensen hasn't done anything of note before or since Star Wars. I would not be surprised to find out that of the 142 minutes of run time, over 100 minutes of it had significant CGI digital manipulation.

      Contrast that with SGU (which my gut tells me has at most five minutes of CGI per episode) SGU hires good, exerienced actors - Robert Caryle, Louis Ferreira, Lou Diamond Phillips.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    23. Re:Funny by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Huh. I thought the acting in SGU was head-and-shoulders above the other Stargate series (which I also loved). To put it bluntly, the show just moved way too slow for me. It felt more like a Battlestar Galactica without any Cylons.

      It did pick up the pace a little bit later on, but maybe it was too little, too late.

    24. Re:Funny by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 1

      I agree. SGU's acting way good, with Robert Carlyle, David Blue and the guy who played Greer being a step ahead of everyone else. Overall, acting was good. Only the female actors needed to step it up.

    25. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you can't have actually watched the episode where that guy was strangled to death. The guy was injured, jammed in place, could not be retrieved and the starship was leaving on its own (they didn't control it then). He asked the military leader in private to be killed rather than slowly expire. The point of that scene was not that the military leader was running amok, or that he was a great guy, it was to show the great stress that the military leader was being subjected to over a prolonged period. It's exactly opposite of what you got from it. The leader is not strong in that clip, he is suffering and can barely hold on - it builds up to him cracking and saying "screw it" in a later episode, wanting to leave all decisions to someone else. They show that clip again and again not to glorify the strangulation - it is supposed to succinctly show how rough their situation is.

    26. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I bet a Star Wars live action tv show would get enough viewers to justify 2.5 million an episode, if not more.

    27. Re:Funny by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      Whatever the standard BBC budget for a light comedy series was at the time (i.e. not much). It only got made because something else didn't, so they they had a spare budget assignment. I wouldn't be surprised if they had less than £30-40k for the entire six episodes of series one. I believe most of the budget for the first series was spent on the original model of Red Dwarf.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    28. Re:Funny by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Or he can just fire the screenwriters. It's not like Star Wars has actually seen any benefit of good dialogue.

      Amen to that, brother. My favourite line was "Being with you is ... intoxicating". Anakin to Padme, #2 or #3 - I forget which. I never watched it again. Watching that show was ... nauseating.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    29. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like Star Trek, where every character is just a human in a pyjama and pretends to be an alien.
      There is a reason why some people like me love movies like Star Wars or Matrix where every details is perfect and why we despise Star Trek or other cheap series which are just a waste of time to watch.

    30. Re:Funny by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Star Trek, Farscape, BSG, SGU, SG1 etc all were "Starship Corridor Shows".

      90% of the show takes place in a hallway. Alternately it takes place in: A pine forest, Rock Quarry, City or Desert.

      Star Wars is often in exotic and expensive locales and outside of a starship hallway.

    31. Re:Funny by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Damn it! Doctor Who just started having stuff take place in corridors. It's dooooooomed!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    32. Re:Funny by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      To the Memory of the Memory of Lisa Yates.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    33. Re:Funny by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's strange.

      I recall scenes from the three original Star Wars movies set in starship hallways (star destroyer, Vader), a pine forest (moon of Eldor), desert (Tatooine), city (Coruscant) and rock quarry (Mos Eisley surroundings). Corridors? What were they flying along on the outside of the Death Star?

      If you want to remove forests, cities and desert variations as possible scenes, along with the interior of space ships you are very quickly running out of options.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    34. Re:Funny by ProfMobius · · Score: 1

      And I seriously want more corridors in it :) Let's us have more TARDIS-centric stories !

      --
      EULA : By reading the above message, you agree that I now own your soul.
    35. Re:Funny by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      The answer is to go off shore for FX. Either Canada, or even South America.

      Since when has Canada been "off shore" of the U.S.?

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    36. Re:Funny by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It helps that it was a British show from a day and an age when actors from that island were happy enough to get a job and didn't want six figure salaries, and British broadcasters have, with some weird exceptions, given the producers of their shows a longer leash. The BBC can be remarkably permissive, which is how you got shows like Doctor Who, Monty Python's Flying Circus and Red Dwarf, their main restriction being small budgets. But I think in a way it almost fostered creativity by forcing the guys writing those shows to work around the shoestring budgets, to make the shows good in the only way they could afford to.

      Big budget or small, it underlines the most critical aspect of any successful show (big or small screen), and that's the writing. It's not enough that you have a great concept, and Lucas has never seemed to have a problem dreaming up cool ideas. But when the rubber has to hit the road and pen has to meet paper, he's just f***ing atrocious at dialogue, and his other weaknesses, like theme worlds, which were fortunately constrained by the technology available in the first trilogy were out of control in the second trilogy. The bigger budgets that the prequels could garner lead, in fact, to a lesser work. Yes, visuals were stunning, as always, but I really found, for the most part, the films to lack the soul of the cornier first movies. Some of it was acting. Hayden Christensen just plain sucked, and it ripped the heart of the last two prequels. He belongs in Twilight films, where he can emote angst. It's not like guys like Alec Guiness, Mark Hamill or Harrison Ford had great lines for much of the first three films, but still, they were solid enough performers to make even cheesy lines (and admit it, especially Episode IV was filled with them) at least tolerable, if not entirely convincing. But Christensen seems to have precisely two emotions; angst and wooden.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    37. Re:Funny by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      They're pretty drab even for a computer game, the X series looks a lot nicer than that screenshot. See here: http://www.egosoft.com/ Of course, the problem with X is that the entire series of games has the most diabolical story telling and voice acting I've ever experienced. Even worse than Breed! A great example is the fact that they named the alien bad guys the "Kh'aak" and then gave every voice actor an american accent. Kh'aak invasion indeed.

    38. Re:Funny by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Or anything said by Jar Jar Binks. Lucas managed to top Disney for some of the most nauseating and pointless sidekicks ever. I kept wanting Qui-Gon Jinn to stick a light saber through him, and I had the feeling that Liam Neeson did too.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    39. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like a Green Screen?

      Don't BS us with Star Wars Apologist material... Yes, the *original* trilogy had expensive sets and exotic locations.
      If George Lucas is going to repeat THAT for the TV series, I'll eat my hat.

      What Lucas would really like to do is get rid of all those pesky actors.

    40. Re:Funny by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      But there is a hidden bonus to watching the prequel Star Wars: one would definitely enjoy the reviews which are by far more interesting than the prequels themselves.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    41. Re:Funny by twocows · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVq5QwMlaII

      He should listen to this guy, he seems to know what he's talking about.

    42. Re:Funny by hexagonc · · Score: 2

      There's a reason Hayden Christensen hasn't done anything of note before or since Star Wars.

      Neither has Jake Lloyd.

    43. Re:Funny by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, it's shot with steady cam and the shaky is edited in (so they can have both to choose from).

    44. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Wars is often in exotic and expensive locales and outside of a starship hallway.

      An Executor Class Star Dreadnought (Or Super Star Destroyer) is 19km long and has a crew of 280k. If they really wanted to, they could do a whole series on the travails of Johnny Stormtrooper as he struggles with trying to deal with the clone troopers and his burgeoning hormones as his unit gets passed from starship to starship culminating in his being on the Death Star and shot first by Han or something.

      They're not ALL clones. An entire show based on space age military would be pretty cool? Star Wars: Stormtrooper.

    45. Re:Funny by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Star Wars is often in exotic and expensive locales and outside of a starship hallway.

      Such as a bar, a desert, a snowy plain or a forest?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    46. Re:Funny by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lack of location shoots was part of what doomed the later prequels. To much conversation while walking in front of computer generated scenery or conversation while sitting in front of computer generated scenery. Mechanical switching between the camera on person A and the camera on person B. No way for the actors to interact with or react to their environments.

      A simple corridor conversation in ANH or ESB would be two people in the frame walking and talking and yelling and stopping and starting and dodging extras with the camera being pulled along on a dolly as a single shot.

      The same thing in RoTS would be distant shot of two people walking for 10 meters. Inexplicably they stop and turn to face one another. Close up of person A talking. Close up of person B talking. Close up of person A talking [repeat as needed] Distant shot of the two people continuing their walk. No art. No flow.

      CGI made George Lucas forget everything he knew about film making. Not having sufficient technology is the best thing that could happen to a Star Wars series.

    47. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's means it is. So you just said "and it is graphics are pathetic". Who's dumb now?

    48. Re:Funny by guybrush3pwood · · Score: 1

      It felt more like a Battlestar Galactica without any resemblance to Battlestar Galactica

      There, FTFY.

      --
      Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
    49. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    50. Re:Funny by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Damn it! Doctor Who just started having stuff take place in corridors. It's dooooooomed!

      Doctor Who has been running up and down corridors for the best part of 50 years now. http://www.shillpages.com/dw/story/d1/st--1b24.jpg

    51. Re:Funny by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Many, many shows these days have great ship effects. But I have yet to see a show where the CGI aliens don't look like CGI aliens to me.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    52. Re:Funny by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      My view of Lucas has always been that he's really good at story concepts and settings; he sucks when it comes to actually writing a story using them. His ideas really need to be filtered through someone who knows how to write.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    53. Re:Funny by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it's called planning your set and scenarios according to your budgets. but really, what he couldn't afford was the voice for jar jar binks. the guys an idiot with money, really. lucas couldn't imagine anything cheap - but he could buy it form other people for very expensive sums, even if it originally was quite cheap. interiors of space ships would be re-usable along the episodes. so would most cgi models. the first sw models were built from scraps. but lucas wouldn't understand that ever.. you know what's funny about coruscant? it's the metropolis planet that has less places to be than tatooine.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    54. Re:Funny by wertarbyte · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check out the excellent Plinkett reviews pf the prequels: http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

      --
      Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
    55. Re:Funny by paedobear · · Score: 1

      Since when has South America been "off shore" of the US?

    56. Re:Funny by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      He can't reliably reproduce Jar Jar Binks and his other computer generated characters every week on a realistic budget. Apparently, Farscape animatronics/muppets are too good for George now that he retired Yoda's puppet. I personally think he should switch to clay animation just to screw with us some more.

      --
      I8-D
    57. Re:Funny by KritonK · · Score: 1

      All these corridors look the same to me!

    58. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if he's aiming for something more exotic like real-time digital makeup and prosthetics, or real-time mocap/actor replacement or stuff like that. So that when you're finished shooting, you're already halfway through post-production.

    59. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucas' problem -> Lucas's problem

      There is one man named "Lucas", not multiple things, each of which is named [a] "Luca".

    60. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking your leg hurts like hell, OK?: "hel".
      They do it below the knee, "lo: " "hel-lo". Get it?
      They do it twice; twice, "two": "hello two".
      And the jigsaw must mean "you". "Hello to you."

    61. Re:Funny by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Well... heh, a hat tip to them for doing a remarkably good job shitting it up then.

    62. Re:Funny by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I assume you're taking the piss?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    63. Re:Funny by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      But Christensen seems to have precisely two emotions; angst and wooden.

      So you're saying he's twice the actor Keanu Reeves is?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    64. Re:Funny by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      If by "character development" you mean when the scriptwriters were writing an episode they pulled each characters attitude and mindset from a hat to keep it fresh then yes. That was the most disjointed piece of crap I have ever seen.

      Space Jimmy Hendrix calling cylons, are you there, over?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    65. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      offshore?

      lol ur not that smart...

      USA/Canada border is the largest "unguarded" border in the world...

      USA/south america border aint small either.

      i dont think "offshore" means what you think it means.

      pro tip : look up the word "continent"

    66. Re:Funny by Sesticulus · · Score: 1

      Go back and watch the originals again. There are shots in there were it's just two folks talking in front of a matte painting. The technology changed, but not the technique.

    67. Re:Funny by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      When writing the possessive form of a person whose name ends with the letter 's', the former (Lucas') is correct, not the latter (Lucas's).

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    68. Re:Funny by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

      yeah, such as episodes 4-6

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    69. Re:Funny by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      Corridors! We used to dream of filming in corridors!

      We had a panaflex camera and used a rubbish bag and a septic tank!

    70. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen some low cost movies (not just sci-fi) that had these two things:
      1) Good acting
      2) Good story/script

      And they were some of hte best movies I have ever seen. Let The Right One In which is not even in English is one of the best movies I have ever seen.

    71. Re:Funny by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      I have seen Sci-Fi shows that would easily rival movie grade FX. Long story short: Lucas knows the cash cow on Star Wars is running dry and starting to curdle.

    72. Re:Funny by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just use puppets for robots? Puppets don't need supercomputers for rendering. And only use aliens that look just like humans with some kind if junk on their forehead.

    73. Re:Funny by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      SGU's "cylons" come out in Season 2.

      They were known as "drones" and "command ships"

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    74. Re:Funny by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Eh, the drone thing was a little weak. They were a faceless, kinda-sorta enemy.

      Cylons were awesome. :)

    75. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's strange.

      I recall scenes from the three original Star Wars movies set in starship hallways (star destroyer, Vader), a pine forest (moon of Eldor), desert (Tatooine), city (Coruscant) and rock quarry (Mos Eisley surroundings). Corridors? What were they flying along on the outside of the Death Star?

      If you want to remove forests, cities and desert variations as possible scenes, along with the interior of space ships you are very quickly running out of options.

      My favourite scene from the three original Star Wars movies was the scene in Coruscant.

      Oh, wait... :)

    76. Re:Funny by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Strange, the fanmade film Star Wars Revelations was made for under $20,000, and has those exotic locations and special effects that you speak of. Maybe that's the difference between fans doing something for free (labor wise) and the industry charging out the Whazoo for them.

    77. Re:Funny by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I am having problems hearing the voice never having played that game...does it come across as an invasion of cock?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    78. Re:Funny by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      At least there are several countries between the U.S. and South America and the Panama Canal does divide the continents but Canada and U.S. actually share a border. Apparently it's a liquid border according to the GP.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    79. Re:Funny by monkeythug · · Score: 1

      I thought he was pretty good in Jumper.

      --
      Don't you wish you hadn't wasted 3 seconds of your life reading this sig?
    80. Re:Funny by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Fan films are *NOT MADE* for under $20k. They're made for hundreds of thousands of dollars in donated time.

      You can bet your ass the industry is going to be charging out the whazoo for them. Those people need to eat, drink and be merry like yourself. I'll happily work for free on a Star Wars live action TV show when all of the grocers, plumbers, gas station attendants and other viewers of my work start giving me free products and services as well.

      The reason people charge up the Whazoo is because it costs a lot of money. One my largest pet peeves is when people make independent films where dozens or hundreds of people donate their time, money and resources and then the producers turn around and brag about how little movies can be made for.

      It's like a homeless person claiming that restaurants charge ridiculous funds, after all "I was able to eat for an entire month for $2, no wonder the economy is tanking if everyone else pays hundreds of dollars a month for food."

    81. Re:Funny by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Just because there happens to be some hallways doesn't disprove my point. When I say "Starship Hallways" I mean 95% of the film takes place in a hallway that can be redressed to look like new places. Take Star Gate Universe. They have a couple of rooms but a large portion of the show is people walking back and forth across redressed sections of the same hallway. Or they're in an empty forest. Or a forest with some tents. You only have to build a couple sets and you're good for an entire season.

      Now let's look at Star Wars A New Hope (from memory so I apologize for missing your favorite shots):

      • Tatooine Exterior
      • Star Destroy Exterior
      • Blockade Runner Exterior
      • Rebel Cruiser Hallway
      • Different style of Rebel Cruiser Hallway
      • Star Destroyer Turret Room.
      • Escape Pod
      • Desert (Fair enough)
      • Desert Canyon (different from desert and probably hundreds of miles away)
      • Jawa Sand Crawler
      • Tatooine village.
      • Tatooine courtyard
      • Tatooine House Interior
      • Tatooine Garage
      • Desert
      • Different Canyon
      • Old Ben's House
      • Old Ben's House Interior
      • Mos Eisley Wide Shot
      • Mos Eisley Streets
      • Mos Eisley Bar Interior
      • Mos Eisley Alleyways
      • Mos Eisley Hanger
      • Wide Shot of Mos Eisley
      • Millenium Falcon Exterior
      • Millenium Falcon Bridge
      • Star Destroyer Bridge
      • Millenium Falcon Living Room
      • Millenium Falcon Turret
      • Millenium Falcon Corridors
      • Alderaan Exterior
      • Death Star Hanger
      • Death Star Guard room
      • Death Star Corridors
      • Death Star Elevator
      • Death Star Prison Cell Block
      • Death Star Prison Cell
      • Death Star Trash Compactor
      • Death Star Bridge
      • Death Star Gun Room
      • Death Star Conference Room
      • Death Star Shield Control room
      • Death Star different Corridors
      • Death Star "Swing" expanse
      • Yavin Prime Exterior
      • Yavin 4 Exterior
      • Yavin 4 Hanger exterior
      • Yavin 4 Hanger interior
      • Yavin 4 Briefing Room
      • X-Wing Exterior
      • X-Wing Interiors
      • Y-Wing Exterior
      • Y-Wing Interiors
      • Death Star Exterior
      • Death Star Trench
      • Death Star Turrets

      Runtime 123 minutes. Approximately 2 episodes.

    82. Re:Funny by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Now let's take your average two hypothetical loosley based on "Fracked" episodes of a "Big Budget" show like Battlestar Galactica.

      Unique sets for 2 episodes:

      • Forest - 3' tall Styrofoam "Ruins"
      • Forest - Tent
      • Interior Prison
      • Exterior Park + VFX
      • Interior Interrogation Room (which could be a Janitor Closet repurposed)
      • Interior Modern Apartment (Vancouver)
      • Rented Penthouse (near Vancouver)
      • Exterior Modern City Street (Vancouver)
      • Interior Opera House (Vancouver)

      (Amortized over 73 episodes, 2 miniseries episodes and 2 films):

      • BSG Bridge
      • BSG Corridors
      • BSG Captains Quarters
      • BSG Hanger
      • BSG - Handful of Multi-purpose rooms
      • Redressed with different props

      • BSG - Briefing Room (maybe a unique set)
      • BSG - Crew Bunks
      • Raptor - Exterior
      • Raptor - Interior
      • Viper - Interior
      • Viper - Exterior
      • Cylon Fighter Exterior
      • Cylon Bomber Exterior
  2. All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank God for that.

    1. Re:All I can say is by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Informative

      Damn right. I'm convinced Eps 4-6 were only made good by accident. The chances of George Lucas accidentally making something that is not utter shit again are quite slim.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:All I can say is by VendingMenace · · Score: 1

      And let's be honest. Only eps 5 is actually a *good* movie. Eps 4 is only good because of the very strong characters and setting. The story is only so-so. Eps 6 is only good because it is riding on the shoulders of 5 and the viewer is still caught up in what happened in eps 5. Eps 5 is actually a spectacular movie, from almost any standpoint. The fact that the tension from 5 carries all the way through 6 is just that much more telling.

    3. Re:All I can say is by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Informative

      And I'm pretty sure ESB was actually in someone else's hands (Different director or producer or something. Can't remember).

      Just sayin'...

    4. Re:All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irvin Kershner

    5. Re:All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irvin Kershner

      ...who undoubtedly made one of the best ever films. May the force be with him, always.

    6. Re:All I can say is by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And let's be honest. Only eps 5 is actually a *good* movie. Eps 4 is only good because of the very strong characters and setting. The story is only so-so.

      I will never understand people who say this.

      Star Wars, the original movie (no, it wasn't called "Episode IV"), was pretty much perfect. Yeah, the story wasn't any great miracle -- pretty much a retelling of "Jack and the Beanstalk" -- but it did have strong characters, it did have good settings, and it was an action-packed and enjoyable movie.

      The Empire Strikes Back is arguably better shot and better directed. But as a story, you would have no idea what's going on if you hadn't seen the first movie. Worse, it starts at some point mid-story, it ends at some point mid-story, and there isn't really any plot at all. Luke whines, Han Solo introduces us to Lando Calrissian (who betrays him), Leia bitches, and Darth Vader kills his own guys. The end. Yeah, it had some great action scenes -- but isn't tons of action with a weak story the reason we all hate the prequels? It's pretty telling when the most memorable character in the movie is a Muppet. And I remember distinctly as a kid, when Darth Vader told Luke he was his father, thinking, "That's bullshit, Vader's lying." When RotJ came out and they acted like it was the god's-honest truth, I was like, "Whaaaaaat? That's so lame."

      The Star Wars series is mostly bad movies. The original Star Wars, on the other hand, remains a near-flawless miracle of filmmaking that will never be repeated.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    7. Re:All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Return of the Jedi did have at least the saber duel between Luke and Vader. That fight was much better choreographed than any of that spinny ninja shit in the prequels.

    8. Re:All I can say is by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      And I'm pretty sure ESB was actually in someone else's hands (Different director or producer or something. Can't remember).

      You know, in the time that it took you to type that you didn't know if it had a different director, you could have looked it up on Wikipedia. It's in the first sentence.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    9. Re:All I can say is by aztrailerpunk · · Score: 1

      I think when 4-6 were made, George Lucas wasn't the only one making the calls. I think people actually challenged him during those movies. As time went on and the series became more and more famous you could see Lucas' control slowly take over. When 1-3 were made, I assume that if anyone other than George made any kind of suggestion on what should be done they would be laughed off the set by George and his cronies.

      --
      Foot placed squarely in mouth since 1983.
    10. Re:All I can say is by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I loved ESB, but you're right, it didn't really have a plot; it was more a series of mini-stories.

    11. Re:All I can say is by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's nowhere as cool as pinball Yoda!!! OMG THAT SCENE WAS TEH BOMB!!!

    12. Re:All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Episode 4: George Lucas
      Episode 5: Irvin Kreshner
      Episode 6: Richard Marquand

    13. Re:All I can say is by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Lawrence Kasdan wrote the screenplay. He also penned Raiders of the Lost Ark, Wyatt Earp, Silverado, The Big Chill, etc.

      --
      Good-bye
    14. Re:All I can say is by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it at all. Episode IV was a pretty bland action film with the singular difference that, for 1977, the special effects were the best anyone had ever seen (I still remember being five years old and sitting next to my dad and his best friend and both of them just going "Wow" for the whole film). Episode V was weakest when it was concentrating on goings-on of Leia, Han and the droids. But there was a helluva lot of character development and weight to the Luke story arc, and the encounter between Luke and Vader was taught with tension and actually, for a Lucas film, had effective dialogue that gave us an entirely new window on Vader's personality, beyond being the one-dimensional evil Nazi-type villain that he was in the first film.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:All I can say is by ZaphDingbat · · Score: 1

      Episode 5 was directed by Irvin Kershner. George didn't direct Episode 6. So yes, you can lay the success of EP5 directly at Kershner's feet.

    16. Re:All I can say is by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Thank God for that.

      iAgree

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    17. Re:All I can say is by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      the encounter between Luke and Vader was taught with tension and actually, for a Lucas film, had effective dialogue that gave us an entirely new window on Vader's personality, beyond being the one-dimensional evil Nazi-type villain that he was in the first film.

      I guess I just didn't need that out of my villain in a totally one-dimensional action-adventure series. I'm not saying ESB is a bad movie -- it's not -- but it's hardly the best of the series. I saw the original in the theater seven times. I might have seen ESB 2-3 times, I don't really remember.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    18. Re:All I can say is by BiggyMcLargeHuge · · Score: 1
    19. Re:All I can say is by mattcsn · · Score: 1

      I felt a disturbance in the Force... as if a million voices suddenly broke into cheers, and could not be silenced.

    20. Re:All I can say is by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      LMAO, I'd watch it XD

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    21. Re:All I can say is by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      When 1-3 were made, I assume that if anyone other than George made any kind of suggestion on what should be done they would be laughed off the set by George and his cronies.

      Laughed off the set? I imagine they were escorted off the set and placed in a garbage smasher on the detention level.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    22. Re:All I can say is by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about.

      The most memorable scene in the whole film is when Vader wants to test the trap he's setting for Luke, and Han is about to be frozen in carbonite*, and Leia says, "I Love you" and Han replies, "I know."

      That and the hand thingie, but the hand thingie doesn't really become important until Luke cuts off Vader's hand in the next film, showing Vader also had a mechanical hand (and dripping with metaphor or allegory or something), right before Luke decides not to fight any more.

      *(I'm convinced Lucas originally envisioned this as "carbon ice" until someone pointed out that the common allotropes of carbon are already solid at room temperature...)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    23. Re:All I can say is by guspasho · · Score: 1

      Irvin Kershner.

      In the time it took you to chide him for not providing the above information you could have helpfully provided it yourself. I'm only saying so because you essentially did the same thing you are criticizing parent of doing.

    24. Re:All I can say is by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      ESB and ROTJ were both done by different directors. George Lucas is immensely creative; he's a wonderful storyteller. He's got an eye for special effects too. What he's not good at is writing and directing films. He needs to be involved on a creative level and then let other people do the writing and directing (he can help write one of the screenplay drafts). Look at Willow, for example, or the Indiana Jones movies (at least the old ones). That's the involvement he needs in a project. That's the involvement he'd have in a live action Star Wars show, so it would probably be quite good.

    25. Re:All I can say is by hexagonc · · Score: 1

      And I remember distinctly as a kid, when Darth Vader told Luke he was his father, thinking, "That's bullshit, Vader's lying." When RotJ came out and they acted like it was the god's-honest truth, I was like, "Whaaaaaat? That's so lame."

      In ROTJ they acted like Vader had told the truth because he really had. Luke didn't believe it either at first but he felt that it was the truth, so it couldn't be denied.

      Okay, I think I am all nerded out for today; I've already posted three times to this thread.

    26. Re:All I can say is by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1
    27. Re:All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Art through adversity.

      The first one is good BECAUSE he had to fight to try and remotely get what he wanted, and there were so many problems.

      episode 6 you can see the glints of the crapstorm.

      My friend leaned over to me in episode 2(3?) and said "that is the most gigantic and epic space battle ever on film, and you're not going to get to see it",
      And he was right.

    28. Re:All I can say is by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Yep, Lucas considers it the worst one of the trilogy, and at one point wanted to fire Irvin.

      As I understand it the producers and studio heads did not allow Lucas to do a lot of stuff he wanted to because they felt it would either be a bad idea or too costly.
      But once he got free reign with the first three, well... We all know how those ended up.

    29. Re:All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's be honest. Only eps 5 is actually a *good* movie. Eps 4 is only good because of the very strong characters and setting. The story is only so-so. Eps 6 is only good because it is riding on the shoulders of 5 and the viewer is still caught up in what happened in eps 5. Eps 5 is actually a spectacular movie, from almost any standpoint. The fact that the tension from 5 carries all the way through 6 is just that much more telling.

      So, aside from the good characters, good setting, quality effects, and a decent story.... it wasn't any good?

    30. Re:All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just said "The first one was perfect, except for the bits where it wasn't."

      I think I know why you can't understand other people. It's because they're rational.

    31. Re:All I can say is by chrisxcr1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Irvin Kershner for ESB and the restraining hand of reason on Ep. 4 was Gary Kurtz. The more control Lucas gained starting with ROTJ the more dumb ideas ended up on screen.

    32. Re:All I can say is by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Actually, only episodes 4 and 5 were pretty good. Episode 6 had some issues.

      Recently, I watched Episode 3 again and for some reason, I was no longer blinded by "magic" and I could see the movie clearly. While I enjoyed watching it many times before, I can now see through the "glamor" and my god, it is horrible. The story is atrocious and the acting, while professional, is still terrible.

      I am kind of afraid of watching episodes 4 and 5 again in case the glamor is gone from them too. I prefer my rosy memories.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    33. Re:All I can say is by KewlPC · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point, which is that Lawrence Kasdan (the writer) and Irvin Kirshner (the director) tried to lift ESB above being a one-dimensional movie, and succeeded for the most part. Real character development, good dialog, good acting & directing, etc.

      Of course, if you're the kind of person who just wants to "turn their brain off" when they watch a movie, well...

    34. Re:All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That scene was the epitome of the prequel spinning sissy fighting.

    35. Re:All I can say is by Serpents · · Score: 1

      You're right: Lucas directed only TNH, ESB was directed by Irvin Kershner and RotJ was directed by Richard Marquand

    36. Re:All I can say is by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      This is so true. For example, the influence of Gary Kurtz -- co-producer of the original Star Wars -- was a big reason why the first movie was as good as it was.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    37. Re:All I can say is by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      * He needs to be involved on a creative level and then let other people do the writing and directing (he can help write one of the screenplay drafts)** why the fuck would you need lucas at all then? he's got no creativity for dialog writing, he's got no balls to make characters(fine tuning 20 years later after filming!), he's no good to have around the set.. he's no coder nor scripter for the special effects. so what exactly would this "creative level" be? spewing out 20 words whilst drunk in a hillbilly bash? and look, just inventing new spider monsters and shit isn't exactly being creative - it's the opposite of that here. you know what's best star wars stuff? the stuff that lucas didn't even know about.(tie fighter as games go, esb and the couple of books by zahn). and if you're writing about star wars just "probably be quite good" didnt' work for ep1, nor ep2, nor ep3. despite having so much cash and first grade actors.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    38. Re:All I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Episode 4: George Lucas
      Episode 5: Irvin Kreshner
      Episode 6: Richard Marquand

      Not only that, but let's also look at who wrote each episode:

      Episode 4: George Lucas
      Episode 5: Lawrance Kasdan and Leigh Brackett
      Episode 6: Lawrence Kasdan

    39. Re:All I can say is by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Like I said, it starts in the middle of nowhere, it ends in the middle of nowhere, and nothing really happens. It's basically a setup for RotJ, the plot of which is ... destroy the Death Star. Hm, heard that before somewhere.The flirtation between Han and Leia was cute, but that's all I got out of it ... cute. It's not what I'd call an actual romance. The rest is all action -- and mindless action, since, unlike the original Star Wars, the heroes don't even have a real objective. They're just thrown one obstacle after the other, and we watch them dodge. And they lose in the end. It really is hard for me to understand how people can esteem ESB so much higher than the original when it's really so much ... less.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    40. Re:All I can say is by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      ESB is a story of survival in the face of a juggernaut. It's the 2nd act in a 3-parter. The Rebel Alliance is in shambles, lots of bad stuff happens, and our protagonists barely escape. We learn about the characters in their distress. Will they survive to win the galaxy?

      I like ESB and don't care for Aliens because in ESB, the acting and dramatic elements bring the characters to life. Han and Leia start out cute and end up serious. There's the Luke/Vader dynamic. Aliens is truly a mindless romp apart from a few satirical elements. If the acting and dialog in ESB hadn't worked, it would've been awful. But it does, and the result is outstanding.

      I do agree that there is no "real objective" because it is a movie of survival rather than planning a goal and achieving it. But there's nothing wrong with that. ESB is sorta like the part of Cast Away when he's on the island. The first part, Memphis/Russia is in movie 1. The results of his journey are in movie 3. All we have in movie 2 is the island. ESB is that island.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    41. Re:All I can say is by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Sidenote: Ripley and the girl have some drama and Cameron does insert some political/corporate greed. But pretty much every character is expendable except for Ripley which is why I rate it lower.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  3. TIme gone by. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember hearing about the show during Starwars Celebration III and thinking it was only a year or 2 away.

  4. Can't fully replace people yet George? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm guessing the holdup is that there still has to be people involved in the production at some step and he was hoping to do it all with robots. Simply treating actors like robots didn't work out in the prequels.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Surt · · Score: 0

      Yep, didn't work out to the tune of 2.5 billion dollars. A colossal failure if ever there was one.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      Why bother for hardware moving around.
      He's waiting for a way to take an actor's face and voice from the old movies and somehow use them to make new movies, *convincingly*.
      Just capture the gestures from unknown, easily replaced actors that are paid peanuts and voila: big budget look and feel without paying the talent.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    3. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by elastic_collision · · Score: 2

      You read it here ladies and gents, financial return is the only measure of success.

    4. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yes, but needing 3 movies to do that. Pfffft. Avatar made more than that on it's own. And by your logic it has to be the better movie.

    5. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Surt · · Score: 2

      It's not the only measure, but it is A measure. It's also a pretty good proxy for popularity. People (generally) liked the prequels. A lot. Kids love Jar-Jar. Deal with it.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it? I had a baby born so I haven't been able to see it yet. I thought most people did, in fact, think Avatar was better.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0

      So according to you Beverly Hills Chihuahua was better than Serenity because it grossed more in box office?

    8. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, didn't work out to the tune of 2.5 billion dollars. A colossal failure if ever there was one.

      The fact that something makes money does not make it a success. Jersey Shore is a profitable show, but I challenge you to call it "successful" with a straight face.

    9. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Carrie Fisher said that Lucas owns her face to the point where she has to pay him every time she looks in the mirror.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    10. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carrie Fisher said that Lucas owns her face to the point where she has to pay him every time she looks in the mirror.

      Have you seen Carrie Fisher recently? Every time she looks in the mirror it breaks.

    11. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, I look nothing like the little kid who stood in line back in '77. Things change, people get old, and... Damn it! You kids get off mah lawn!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    12. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Surt · · Score: 1

      It has been a massive success. It has influenced our collective culture significantly. Even YOU know about it.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    13. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Surt · · Score: 1

      I didn't see BHC because it wasn't my thing, but since Serenity was terrible I wouldn't be surprised.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    14. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Not universally. My kids (both under 10) hate Jar Jar and use his voice/speech pattern for mockery. That said, they do like the prequels better than the sequels (that just sounds backwards..) because the originals "look old". Also the fact that Darth Vader is Luke's father isn't exactly a secret these days, so there's that.

    15. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      If people kept going back to BHC over and over again for months until its box office receipts were comically high, you might just have to concede that the general public thought it was better.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    16. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obviously, since George Lucas owns her face, she has no incentive to take care of it.

    17. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. And highlighted herein is one of the things that is wrong with America: "success" = "good".

      This is not an absolute, stop treating it as such. Many things that are successful are bad for our country and culture.

    18. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. Those weren't robots?

    19. Re:Can't fully replace people yet George? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, each prequel made less money than the one before it. If the movies were really popular each movie should have made a lot more than the previous one as they built the franchise. If they were just ok, each should have made a little more than the last. I think the evidence indicates that "Star Wars" is popular but the movies failed to live up to the popularity of the setting and turned off more fans than they brought into the franchise.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  5. I know why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They haven't invented an espresso machine up to his standards yet.

  6. And Nothing of Value was Lost... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, let's think for a second here: back when the only Star Wars movies/media that were any good at all were produced, visual effects were both vastly cruder and more expensive(per unit bang, I'm sure the ceiling price has continued to climb...).

    Therefore, if they are "too expensive" now, either Lucas has wandered off the ranch, so to speak, and is insisting that it be shot in 100053459348p 512Hz 3HD or and vastly more likely the plan was to shovel a bunch of straight-to-TV/DVD kiddie-schlock and they aren't sure that they can recoup the cost of visual effects that wouldn't be laughed at.

    It sounds like the world is on track to be spared an atrocity here.

    1. Re:And Nothing of Value was Lost... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the world is on track to be spared an atrocity here.

      Ever since they wrapped on Jedi, that's been possible.

    2. Re:And Nothing of Value was Lost... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no big deal to shoot a movie with a budget of $150-200 million these days. That's about 2 hours of finished product that people will watch for $10-12 a seat for several weeks, followed by pay-per-view and DVD.

      Scale those costs to creating 13 1-hour episodes, and you're looking at $975-1,300 million for a season (probably more because you're shooting on a compressed time scale. Each of those episodes will be seen *once* or *twice* during the first season by viewers, who aren't *directly* paying toward the production costs.

      Name me a TV show (successful or not) that cost even *half* that for a season. A quarter?

  7. Sheesh by mrsam · · Score: 2

    Gee, I didn't know that the cost of flogging a dead horse is still that expensive. I'd think that Lucas could command a hefty discount, based only on volume.

    1. Re:Sheesh by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The rest of the star wars story (eps 7-9) is actually more interesting and deep than the crap we've got so far. George Lucas drorpped 4-6 to shove us into the center of an incomplete story, like starting The Gap Cycle on book 3. A very inferior story compared to suffering the first book and a half. Unfortunately, the depth of character development that gets explained in the first 3 episodes is ... difficult to do in movies. A long-running TV series would be better; movies are horrible because they put every relevant piece of a story into an almost fixed length of about 2 hours, and nobody will tolerate 12 in the series. TV has the same problem in the US, because everyone wants a complete problem-resolution cycle in isolated episodes that don't have to be watched in exact order, as opposed to chapter-style episodic progression.

      The end result is we got somewhat uninteresting action for movies 4-6, because we showed movies 1-3 as movies 4-6. The real depth of actual story starts around episode 4, so that's where the original series started. Episodes 7-9--which now will not be produced--detail much more complicated emotional struggles, as well as more subtle story progressions. There is less action and more content, which is less interesting to people than watching Neo beat up hundreds of copies of Smith for no real reason.

    2. Re:Sheesh by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Well look at Lord of the Rings. the full director's cut of all three movies is nearly 12 hours long and is still missing massive amounts of the story.

      What I wish, is for more and bigger budget mini-series's. So a story that runs 12-20 hours long allowing proper character development the big side of special FX's. The remake of Dune , Band of Brothers, etc

      Something you won't sit down and watch all at once, but you don't end up with 5 seasons of varying quality and actors.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Sheesh by ginbot462 · · Score: 2

      >> TV has the same problem in the US, because everyone wants a complete problem-resolution cycle in isolated episodes that don't have to be watched in exact order, as opposed to chapter-style episodic progression.

      Luckily the tides are slowing turning that way (for now); the strongest starter was back with the Sopranos. Now, HBO,Showtime, Stars, etc. are full "episodic" material. You could argue that reality TV is that way too.

      Two problems:
      1. Sci-Fi - Film companies have been scared of it historically (read Sci-Fi Ghetto at TvTropes.com; or don't if you have something to do this month). Are exceptions, even going back to the old serial Flash Gordon movies.
      2. Pendulm Effect - Meaning history, art, and taste swing back and forth. We could start going back to "situational" and 22 min resolutions.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    4. Re:Sheesh by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      The end result is we got somewhat uninteresting action for movies 4-6, because we showed movies 1-3 as movies 4-6. The real depth of actual story starts around episode 4, so that's where the original series started

      Wow, dude, you really need to pull your head out of your genre for a while.

      The reason science fiction books are always series with a minimum of three books is because that way they can sell you a minimum of three books.

      If you'd broaden your horizons a little bit, however, you'd realize that most of the great literature of the world is stand-alone books. Likewise, most of the great movies ever made do not have any sequels or prequels -- The Godfather being one notable exception, which they fucked up when they tried to have lightning strike twice.

      And FWIW, this thing about George Lucas "deciding to film episode 4 first" is a myth -- propagated by Lucas, but a myth nonetheless. He made a movie. When it was a success, he made more movies.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    5. Re:Sheesh by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      HBO's Rome!

      Hey, maybe that's the ticket? Have John Millius write/direct them?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    6. Re:Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you remove the uselessly prolonged battle sequences from the LotR movies, you will get more than enough time to put the story in.

    7. Re:Sheesh by blincoln · · Score: 1

      What are you basing these claims on? Lucas has stated that he never wrote any story for Episodes 7-9, just that *decades ago* the plan was to eventually have nine films.

      I've seen some of the very early versions of the story, from back when it was about Anakin Starkiller. While I could see a lot of the bits and pieces that became the six films he eventually made, there didn't seem to be anything beyond that, so I tend to believe his claim.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    8. Re:Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leaving us with a part II that has no self-contained arc, theme, or entertainment value. Try watching the Deathly Hallows Part 1 without the first 40 minutes and see how long you can bear it out...

    9. Re:Sheesh by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I rarely read Sci-Fi; I like Fantasy better.

      Age of Misrule, by Mark Chadbourn. 9 books. Completely planned out to start. Everything in the series is important, everything sets up the rules or the characters, everything is a continuing advancement. There's like half a dozen major struggles, and whenever you think it's over they're just like "oh, no, what? The princess is in another castle." It's well-written and complete.

      The Gap Cycle, Stephen R. Donaldson. Completely planned out. If it were one book, it would be a 9.5 x 6 inch hardback in small print... 2600 pages long. The first book sets up the main character; the second sets up the universe and the premise for the series. The last three are ... intense.

      Donaldson's series, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, is pretty much from the hip. He wrote a book, expanded it to a trilogy, planned another trilogy, and is working on a planned tetralogy. It's done pretty well, but it's just more and more books being written. The story wasn't finished in Book 1; it was finished in Book 2, but a lot of shit was left unexplained. Further books have expanded the world more and more; details we knew about but didn't understand have been explained, so it seems Donaldson had envisioned a world and some details that were untenable to explain in the first stories. He will never explain it all; there is a vast collection of lore that High Lord Kevin had recorded and hidden, and for conditions to permit them to be found and explored he would need several new series. This would be like mankind being driven back into the stone age by global thermonuclear war, then discovering faster-than-light space travel ... a lot of shit is going to have to happen in between. Donaldson is done writing in that series after this tetralogy.

      I read a lot of good series. Lucas wrote a long, complete story when he tried to write a movie script. He worked out a lot of stuff, and before the script was ready he realized it was too much for one film... then he realized he was writing the middle of the story ... a nine part story. I have not read the books because I don't care that much for Star Wars, but hey. He did not make a movie and then make more movies; he made a movie and wound up writing an epic story in the middle of trying to do a single, self-contained short story.

    10. Re:Sheesh by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      You've fallen for Lucas' bullshit. He himself admitted in one of the featurettes for Episode 1 that he didn't even come up with the story for the movie until the 90s. He did not come up with these 9 stories and then start in the middle. That is total fabrication. If he had really come up with all 9 stories before hand why is their such huge continuity breaks between Eps 1-3 and Eps 4-6? Right, that's because he never thought of making eps 1-3 until decades later. Secondly, why, if it was really supposed to be some 9 part epic, did the original version of Star Wars crawl not contain the "Episode IV" moniker until it was reshown in theaters after Empire Strikes Back? That's because it was originally never intended to be "Episode IV" at all.

    11. Re:Sheesh by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I'm going by stuff I heard back in the early 90s when I had friends that had Star Wars action figurines and had read every single Star Wars book ever published. You know, the people that could explain Darth Vader's origins as Anakin Skywalker on Tatooine back in 1992? There was never a book called "The Phantom Menace" except as a movie tie-in; but there was lots and lots of story, and there is lots more story left. It has to be ordered into a movie script, but that's hardly equivalent to "never coming up with the story."

    12. Re:Sheesh by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Those books were not written by George Lucas and as far as I understand his only involvement was collecting the royalty checks. As I understand it, the movie prequels pretty much disregard everything ever written in the books. So Lunix is correct, Lucas didn't come up with the story for the prequels until shortly before they were filmed. He could do episodes 7-9 but he would again deliberately not do anything from books, I suspect it's because he would then have to share creative control and more of the profits.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    13. Re:Sheesh by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      I'm going by stuff I heard back in the early 90s

      Great, give me some quotes from the late 70s or early 80s from Lucas talking about all these "9 stories". Oh right, you can't because it is historical fiction made up years and years later.

  8. As Jon Lovitz would say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And nothing of value was lost!

  9. I'm sure I speak for all of us by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

    We're very, very disappointed that this isn't going to happen.

  10. Lack of Technology! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lack of Technology!

    If J. Michael Straczynski believed this when he was pitched Babylon 5, we probably would not have had that great series, in fact it's production pushed out newer and cheaper technologies as it went along!

    1. Re:Lack of Technology! by msclrhd · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Babylon 5 didn't have the technology to do the FX cheaply (models used by Star Trek, etc. were expensive), so they created their own as they went along.

      Sometimes the Babylon 5 SFX team completed the rendering of a scene hours before it was to be uploaded to the studio for broadcasting (rendering scenes on Amigas originally, taking days to complete a simple scene). They even recycled some of the footage (e.g. launching ships) between episodes.

      Groundbreaking stuff that showed you could do quality effects (for the time) on a budget.

  11. Midgets. by kryliss · · Score: 1

    Use more midgets, I hear they work for peanuts...... Oh wait.. maybe elephants.. Yeah that's it.. Hire more elephants!!!!

    --
    --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
  12. old stuff by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    For me, whenever I read "Star Wars" in articles, I always think, "ongoing re-tread/re-write/re-cast of the 1970s movie." It seems Star Trek has same trend. Cmon' these guys got lotsa bux or is it the issue of $50 million for special effects, $5K for writers?

    Consider if same was done for Gunsmoke and Bonanza, there's only seven plots to a western.

    Before I'm dead of old age, I'd like to see some new material (and a new manned spacecraft flown from USA but that's for another thread). I guess I'll have to get off my butt and do it myself.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:old stuff by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Ooh, westerns... (wait for it) in SPACE!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    2. Re:old stuff by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      There bringing Firefly back?!

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    3. Re:old stuff by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Ooh, westerns... (wait for it) in SPACE!

      Firefly. You must be new around here.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  13. Han Solo show! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You know what would be really cool - a show all about han solo, where he and his rag-tag crew jet about the galaxy in their decrepit but well loved ship, taking on any smuggling job, facing danger together, serving out home-style justice when it serves their pocketbooks, wooing space-ladies.

    Oh wait, they already made that show, it's called firefly, and it got cancelled.

    Sorry to get your hopes up george

    1. Re:Han Solo show! by tycoex · · Score: 1

      I read a book like this once when I was a kid. It was about Han and Chewie's smuggling adventures prior to meeting Luke. It was a really cool book (When I was a kid at least, I'm not sure how it would hold up if I read it now).

    2. Re:Han Solo show! by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      When I read your first sentence, I seriously thought you were making a joke about The A-Team.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re:Han Solo show! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      The Corporate Arm (of the galaxy) series. I still have them in a box in storage.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    4. Re:Han Solo show! by sharkey · · Score: 2

      That's no moon, fool!

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    5. Re:Han Solo show! by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      There were three "Han Solo and the X" type books released in the early eighties. They are long since out of print, but they were quite good. There was also a related book about Luke and Leia having an adventure out in a temple someplace, but since episode 6 hadn't been released yet, it had too much UST and was probably reconned out due to incest ickiness.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    6. Re:Han Solo show! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The books you're talking about are sitting on my bookshelf right now. I have Han Solo and the Lost Legacy, Han Solo at Star's End, and Han Solo's Revenge. I read them all as a kid and really don't remember them. The other book is Splinter of the Mind's Eye. Although I haven't read it, I've heard it's actually quite good. It was intended to be a sequel to Ep 4 if no movie sequels ever got made, so it takes the story in a very different direction.

  14. Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    He's afraid that it would ruin the Star Wars legacy... Wait, shit.

  15. Lack of special effect technology.... by Windwraith · · Score: 1

    ...didn't stop the first movies from happening.

    Are all directors this INCREDIBLY LAZY and uncreative?

    1. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually for most early film EVERYTHING was special effects. Only later did they learn that you could also tell stories with the medium. Of course that was a century ago, so you'd think it would have sunk in by now...

    2. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      George Lucas was ever creative? The only reasons why the first 3 movies didn't suck was because George wasn't doing it solo. Episodes 1-3 suck so much because he thought his shit didn't stink and he surrounded himself with nothing but yesmen and all he churned out was schlock.

    3. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, they had to invent most of the stuff that ended up in "Star Wars", leading to the creation of ILM, who always have pushed the limits of FX technology.

      Remember that after "Jedi", Lucas said he wanted to make a prequel trilogy, but "the effects technology hasn't been invented yet/today's tech wasn't good enough", and we all saw what crapfests those turned out to be. All the FX in the world can't make up for lousy scripts and lousy direction, both of which were almost solely in George's hands. Look at the Red Letter Media reviews.

    4. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Lucas creative? I don't think so. I never thought so, rather.

      Similarly to "if life gives you lemons, make limonade", a real creative can do his/her work even if all the available resources are a few cardboard boxes and silver paint.
      Therefore, I don't believe that there is no technology to make ANY series. Everything is possible in fiction. If it's not, you are doing it wrong.

    5. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Many many years ago depicting a mere spaceship was a real challenge. They pushed on and managed to do the first SW trilogy. Where is that willpower and creativity now?

      Hence, I consider that man got lazy and is not worthy of having fans or even being a "creative" person at all. Pass the seat to the new generation of real creators who live permanently shadowed by this kind of people.

      I don't really care about the result, never really been a SW fan, yet, I value effort and real creativity A LOT. I see nothing but horrible cheap CG in the new trilogy. All that can be considered good were events "set on stone" by the previous movies.

    6. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a writer, he's not bad. He has writing credits on all the Indiana Jones movies and Willow.
      He is just an awful director and didn't direct a movie between A new Hope (1977) and Phantom Menace (1999).

    7. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucas (or rather, his team) invented motion-control camera techniques for the first movie so that a lot of SFX could be done in-camera (using models and multiple exposures, etc) which today (even ten or fifteen years ago) would be done with CGI. Unfortunately it takes a small army of artists and computer geeks to do decent feature-length CGI these days (the credit roll on the latest Harry Potter flick takes ten minutes).

      TV's a little easier to do because you can render at lower resolution, re-use stock shots (did Stargate ever have more than one or two shots of the gate-opening flush effect?) but as others have noted, that deficiency is usually made up by using actors, directors and writers who can actually act, direct, and write.

    8. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Many many years ago depicting a mere spaceship was a real challenge.

      I assume you mean prior to the 1950s and Forbidden Planet? Or do you mean a "realistic" spaceship -- in which case, the better example would be 2001: A Space Odyssey, which came 9 years before Star Wars (which doesn't really depict spaceships in any real sense at all).

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    9. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Dracos · · Score: 1

      He's a shitty writer. Ask anyone who read the last Indy script that Spielberg delivered to Lucas for review, before Lucas forced his input on it.

      Or, just watch Eps 1-3.

    10. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      He's a good writer, just not a good script writer. The underlying stories are fine, the scripts just aren't great.

    11. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      As a writer, he's not bad.

      You're joking, right? Eps 1-3 have some of the worst writing imaginable. The dialogue is horrendous.

    12. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      That's nitpicking...it's just a quick reply post.
      That doesn't make you any less wrong though, so I guess someone should mod you informative.

    13. Re:Lack of special effect technology.... by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Er...I meant to say "That doesn't make you wrong though". I fail it.

  16. Why so expensive? by softWare3ngineer · · Score: 1

    what makes it so expensive? seems like a really intense 3d modeling software would be expensive, but a one time cost. is it just a lack of man power? I even understand that the process requires a good deal of processing power, but what is stopping the software from doing some rough rendering while tweaking scenes and leaving the really CPU intense stuff for the evening.

    1. Re:Why so expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3d "modelling software" is not purchased, but rather licensed. They typically carry a 25% -38% maintanance contract.

    2. Re:Why so expensive? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Because the expertise required to create 3D effects from perfectly capable hardware and software is ridiculous.

    3. Re:Why so expensive? by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      Software is expensive, render farms are relatively less so, but artists who understand how to use the tools efficiently and effectively aren't exactly a dime a dozen.

    4. Re:Why so expensive? by msclrhd · · Score: 1

      Blender is free. It has been used to create various animated shorts showcasing what it can do (Elephant's Dream, Big Buck Bunny and Sintel).

    5. Re:Why so expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blender IS free, but most professional artists don't know how to use it - nor have enough motivation to learn, since it doesn't do anything 'better' then the existing systems (which cost significant amount of money).

    6. Re:Why so expensive? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Rendering is the very last step but to get to the last step, you have to actually have people doing the animation. There isn't a Star Wars plugin Lucas could buy that allows him to make up scenes, vehicles, planets, and characters out of nothing. Animation is not a skill that you can hire anyone off the street. From The Incredibles commentary, Brad Bird said there were two animators that both happened to be Spanish that were very good at animating heavy objects. "If you have something heavy, you must go to the Spainards!" What that meant is that these guys could animate a scene in which a heavy object would feel heavy to the viewer. That nuance takes skill and even though other animators at Pixar are good at their jobs, these animators had a niche.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:Why so expensive? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0

      Yes, and so is Duh Gimp but neither are replacements for the tools professionals use. Secondly, the notion that either are "free" is completely eliminated when you factor in all the time and money spent retraining people and migrating workflows to the new software. It is only "free" if your time is worthless.

    8. Re:Why so expensive? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Blender is free. It has been used to create various animated shorts showcasing what it can do (Elephant's Dream, Big Buck Bunny and Sintel).

      To be fair, it should be noted that a big reason they produced Elephant's Dream, Big Buck Bunny, and Sintel, was so they could give Blender a shake-down: figure out what was wrong with it that made production of such works difficult or problematic and attempt to fix it.

      For guys like me, who want to try out 3-D modeling and animation without laying down a bunch of cash to do so, it's a pretty sweet deal. But at this point, I think it's fair to say that the Blender Foundation has a lot more to gain from someone using their software to produce a TV show than the people producing the TV show do.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  17. Original Star Trek / Tron Legacy by ddt · · Score: 2

    I'd still watch new episodes of the original 60's Star Trek, as long as the writing/acting was a good as some of the better ones they made then, and the special effects were all but missing in action then.

    By contrast, I just saw Tron Legacy again, and it is nearly unwatchable for me. It was distractingly inappropriate as a sequel to the original. Great special effects married with poor writing and poor actor direction.

    1. Re:Original Star Trek / Tron Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to remind you that the original Tron is not the glorious piece of film that you are painting it to be... it was hardly anything worthy of being called a masterpiece of writing and acting.

    2. Re:Original Star Trek / Tron Legacy by ddt · · Score: 1

      It was no Shawshank, but the original Tron wasn't the tripe that is Star Wars Episodes 1-3 or Tron Legacy either. The original Tron also had a production budget of $17M. The new Tron Legacy had a production budget of closer to $170M. Those things need to be taken into consideration.

      The first Tron had the novelty of being the first, which buys it cool points, and yes, it was better written and acted, much better than Tron Legacy, where every female character's job was to literally bat their big eyes at attractive angles, where Jeff Bridges' immense acting talent gets completely disposed of so that he can spend over half the screen time trying to look Zen, and instead, we're distracted by a character named Zeus, because what the Tron universe needs is a comical club owner / double agent who likes to play with a Charlie Chaplin cane. Just reading that makes my eyes bleed. What made Tron Legacy particularly inappropriate was that it required you to be familiar with Tron and heavily referenced it, so the juxtaposition becomes vivid in your mind as you're watching it.

      George is copping out.

    3. Re:Original Star Trek / Tron Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but remember, the GP most likely first saw it between the ages of 12 and 18 years old. This, by means of SCIENCE!, makes it far superior to all the dreck he/she saw between the ages of 18 and today.

      Honestly. It's like you refuse to understand SCIENCE! at all.

    4. Re:Original Star Trek / Tron Legacy by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      I refuse to watch that movie. I just know I'll have another Phantom Menace experience.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  18. writers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lucas probably found out what it costs to actually pay somebody who can write a story with things like plot lines, dialog, continuity, logic, etc rather than slapping a 'script' together while sitting on the crapper like he usually does.

  19. Wait a second.. by bravecanadian · · Score: 1

    Why does he need it to be economically viable?

    If he really wanted to do it for some valid artistic reason or even because he needed something to do: he can spare a billion or two and get it done.

    He isn't getting any younger. I mean how many yachts do you need, anyways?

    1. Re:Wait a second.. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      He isn't getting any younger. I mean how many yachts do you need, anyways?

      Yes, but he has to think of all the yachts his children might need in the future.

  20. He still doesn't get it by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He still doesn't get it. For whatever reason, he continues to equate incredible special effects with incredible results. Even if he were to spend that massive budget for each episode, I strongly doubt the result would be anywhere near as good as something like Battlestar Galatica, Babylon 5, etc.

    If you somehow haven't seen them, I recommend Red Letter Media's review of the Star Wars: Episodes 1-3, which does a better job of explaining why those films are miserable piles of crap than I could ever hope to do myself. Also relevant clip from an episode of South Park.

    1. Re:He still doesn't get it by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He still doesn't get it. For whatever reason, he continues to equate incredible special effects with incredible results.

              He has made an obscene amount of money and gotten a whole generation of geeks to worship his half-assed "space opera" special effects films and treat them as if they had some deep meaning.

        Star Wars (even the originals) are almost completely special effects extravaganzas. It wasn't Shakespeare and it certainly wasn't good science fiction.

                What doesn't he get?

    2. Re:He still doesn't get it by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      My review of Red Letter Media's review:

      Fuck these guys are retarded. Who publishes content like this as a video?

    3. Re:He still doesn't get it by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It seems apparent to me in watching the outtakes how unconcerned Lucas was with things like plot, acting, and nuances. He just wanted to get the actors to spit out their lines and move to the right spots. He'd fix every thing with SFX and more light sabre swordplay it seems.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:He still doesn't get it by PhrstBrn · · Score: 1

      Well you ain't gettin a pizza roll.

    5. Re:He still doesn't get it by RCC42 · · Score: 1

      Most of the new Battlestar Galactica was just actors in starkly lit metal boxes talking fiercely at each other with a few minutes per episode of (relatively inexpensive looking but still workable) cgi and almost bad-looking cgi cylons (the metal ones I mean, not the meatbag ones)

      Yet everyone loved that series until the lolfinal episode.

    6. Re:He still doesn't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck these guys are retarded. Who publishes content like this as a video?

      Over a million people have watched their TPM review right through on YouTube. So I guess the answer to your question is "the kind of retard who wants to be incredibly popular and successful".

    7. Re:He still doesn't get it by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      The original trilogy actually had interesting characters, a decent plot, and good special effects.

      The second trilogy really only had good special effects, but they wore thin as the plot became increasingly asinine and the characters unlikable.

      The point is that good special effects alone can't make a good movie. Hell, there's a decent amount of science fiction that doesn't invest heavily in special effects, but because the characters and story are so compelling we as a community still enjoy them.

    8. Re:He still doesn't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot farscape! Why do people always forget it! Sure it has some bad and weak episodes here and there, but overall it is really a great sci-fi/comedy/drama TV show.

    9. Re:He still doesn't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also relevant clip from an episode of South Park.

      You bastard! You killed South Park!

    10. Re:He still doesn't get it by weicco · · Score: 1

      I think you are right about first trilogy's characters and plot. But what you criticized was special effect. You have to remember it was Lucas who started the whole special effects industry with original Star Wars trilogy. He wanted cool space battles and was determined to get them. So I would say special effects has always been at least one factor amongst the others (plot, characters) in Star Wars.

      In second trilogy I agree with you completely. All effects, poor characters, mediocre plot. Nothing major like "Luke, I'm your father" twists in the plot. Only thing I liked was the light saber duels, especially in the Phantom Menace.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    11. Re:He still doesn't get it by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      He still doesn't get it. For whatever reason, he continues to equate incredible special effects with incredible results.

      And why shouldn't he? It worked for James Cameron!

    12. Re:He still doesn't get it by m50d · · Score: 1

      He has made an obscene amount of money and gotten a whole generation of geeks to worship his half-assed "space opera" special effects films and treat them as if they had some deep meaning.

      Sounds very much like Shakespeare, only getting more of the money himself and geeks rather than English majors.

      --
      I am trolling
    13. Re:He still doesn't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original Dr Who comes to mind

    14. Re:He still doesn't get it by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      You missed the only other good thing the second trilogy had Natalie Portman. I wouldn't even say that the special effects were terribly good. Most of it seemed too forced and unnatural, especially in episode 1.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  21. Don't Bother. by tthomas48 · · Score: 2

    If the kind of technology that George Lucas uses was 1/10th the cost then it would be used by good storytellers and he still wouldn't be able to film a TV series.

  22. What should it cost? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    and that the cost of producing an episode is about ten times of what it should be."

    Most things cost around what they should cost. I think what he meant to say was that it would cost 10 times what it would be worth.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  23. Define cost effective by itwbennett · · Score: 1

    How 'cost effective' does it need to be when it's got a guaranteed audience of male tweens, teens, 20s ... plus all the geek girls. And the nostalgia audience too (that's my demographic, btw.).

    1. Re:Define cost effective by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      How 'cost effective' does it need to be when it's got a guaranteed audience of male tweens, teens, 20s ... plus all the geek girls. And the nostalgia audience too (that's my demographic, btw.).

      The audience seems "guaranteed" but in fact it isn't. If the audience doesn't enjoy the show, they won't stick with it.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  24. Try Henson More by jimmerz28 · · Score: 2

    Because we want to replace all the non-human characters with CG ones?

    I'd rather take my Jim Henson puppets from Farscape, Dark Crystal and Yoda thanks.

    1. Re:Try Henson More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A rastafarian in a rubber mask and he could save a fortune on Jar-Jar Binks alone.

  25. 10 times the crap crammed in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would cost 10 times because Lucas has this weird idea that cramming in 10 times the amount of useless background detail into every scene is what makes a good movie. See episodes 1 to 3 and the "remade" eps 4 to 6 as prime examples of the visual clutter he thinks is necessary. (though I suppose the purpose there is to distract from the paper thin storylines)

    1. Re:10 times the crap crammed in by Swampash · · Score: 1

      It would cost 10 times because Lucas has this weird idea that cramming in 10 times the amount of useless background detail into every scene is what makes a good movie

      And into the foreground would be crammed the childhood versions of every character who ever appeared in Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi.

    2. Re:10 times the crap crammed in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just so dense.

  26. GOOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a very good thing IMHO.

    George Lucus ought to lose all right to Star Wars after all he's done to 'IMPROVE THEM'

    Also, he and Steven Spielberg should get life without parole for 'Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'

  27. Typewriter, George! by tekrat · · Score: 2

    Funny, but the technology existed in the early 70's to make the greatest space fantasy film of all time on a mere nine million dollar budget.

    I think what's really got him is that his computer-based word processor can't write a decent script by itself. It's lacking the AI that his typewriter had in college. It's lacking the imagination to create anything substantial.

    Please George, find a garage sale, and buy a used, beat-up Royal Typewriter, and sit down and write a real script with characters, using nothing but the imagination inside you. Whatever spark of creativity you once had must still exist down there inside you, you've just lost touch with how to access it.

    Maybe you need to THROW AWAY all that technology that's got you so befuddled, and go back to something more genuine. You've forgotten that it's the humans in the story the audience is concerned with, not how glitzy you can make the spaceships look.

    Story first, then figure out how to film it. It's the most basic rule in all of film-making, and you've forgotten it.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Typewriter, George! by Gilmoure · · Score: 2

      Um, Star Wars was pretty much just a re-imaging of the samurai film The Hidden Fortress. The creativity that Lucas put into Star Wars was exactly what he's known for: special effects, detailed backgrounds and over-the-top fight scenes. Not sure if anyone could expect anything more from him?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    2. Re:Typewriter, George! by proverbialcow · · Score: 1

      Maybe you need to THROW AWAY all that technology that's got you so befuddled, and go back to something more genuine.

      He kind of did that once, when he sold the Graphics Group in a fire sale to finance his divorce. It didn't help - we still wound up with a tech-heavy, shitty prequels. The Graphics Group, as Pixar, went on to tell some good stories (and yes, some formulaic ones) with amazing CGI. I think the real key is removing George Lucas from the equation.

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    3. Re:Typewriter, George! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you need to THROW AWAY all that technology that's got you so befuddled, and go back to something more genuine.

      You mean...use the force?

    4. Re:Typewriter, George! by ddt · · Score: 2

      It's too late. Technology has corrupted him. Darth Lucas is more machine than man.

    5. Re:Typewriter, George! by Luscious868 · · Score: 2

      Lucas actually had people to answer to when he created the original trilogy. His original script for Star Wars under went massive re-writes. He only directed the first movie and during his first time out he had both a set budget and studio executives to reign him in. If Lucas would have been given free reign to do to the originals what he did to the prequel trilogy the original films would have been just as bad or worse than the prequels. Lucas best work was done under tight constraints with major input from others. Pure Lucas = Howard the Duck. Lucas with constraints and forced to work with others = Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Raiders of the Lost Ark and the list goes on. Lucas has some great ideas mixed with a majority of horrible ideas and if you give him free reign without a filter to sort the brilliance from the crap the results are the The Phantom Menace.

  28. He's forgotten what made Star Wars good by PsychicX · · Score: 1

    This is coming from a man who put together A New Hope on a shoestring budget fighting against all the odds. Now he can't put together a decent TV show at a decent budget? Come on. People don't watch Star Wars for the insane production values.

    1. Re:He's forgotten what made Star Wars good by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1
      I suspect it's the money that ruined him. The first three movies are a basic hero's journey cobbled together by dreamers into something amazing. The latter three appear to be masturbatory fx-fests with little to no value as stories. Darth Vader is a dynamic character despite showing a single expression for all but 2 minutes of the film. Anakin Skywalker... not so much.

      With his initial dream fulfilled, seems he lost whatever drove him to create the initial masterpieces.

      --
      "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
  29. Blame Jar Jar by the_raptor · · Score: 2

    CGI these days is mostly labour based. A render farm is costly upfront but all the players have massive ones sitting waiting for jobs. The thing that costs money is paying good artists for the huge amounts of work you need. Creating fully CGI characters and sets (like George probably wants because he is an idiot) is a lot different from doing some touching up like removing wires from stuntmen.

    Star Wars TV could be done no more expensive then shows like Battlestar Galactica or Stargate. In nearly all the stories the aliens are mostly background characters so who cares if they are just rubber masks? Hell, in the Imperial period you could just set the show in a particularly xenophobic part of Imperial space and barely have to worry about aliens.

    The problem is a film producer/director trying to work in TV. TV is a world of compromise and spreading your money really thin. A big budget movie producer/director doesn't have the skill set or correct mindset (Spielbergs mini-series are hellishly expensive).

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  30. Thank God! by jareth780 · · Score: 1

    If this is what is keeping him from producing more of that crap, then I'm all for it.

    Although he clearly means he just needs cheaper animators in to throw annoying effects on the screen. If he just made the shows the way he made A New Hope, he wouldn't have this problem (or in our case, solution).

  31. Nub Nub Cry The Ewoks! by QuatermassX · · Score: 2

    I suspect his bland style of pastiche adventure would work fairly well as a 60-minute limited series of, say, 15 episodes, but 100 hours? Good lord, Lucas should just call it a day and direct cut scenes for any of the Star Wars spinoff video games. I suspect they'd be far better received than his recent ghastly, leaden feature films.

    1. Re:Nub Nub Cry The Ewoks! by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      No kidding. And he's about due for a Wing Commander voiceover...

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  32. George Lucas by x6060 · · Score: 1

    The only man whose fans absolutely hate him. I was really looking forward to this when it was announced as there were suppose to be Mandolorian episodes. But since he turned them into pacifists he destroyed the only thing I liked about star wars.

  33. Remember by Chaymus · · Score: 1

    Judas only betrayed one man. Way to go George.

  34. Hey Everybody - Remember Me...? by Leo+Sasquatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's all this is. He can't need the money. He's desperately trying to pretend he has still got something to contribute to the arts.

    Pioneer One tells a compelling story with essentially zero FX and a budget that wouldn't pay for nose-candy on most movie sets. Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning was rendered in the film-maker's kitchen. The Hunt for Gollum manages to produce a digital Gollum (ok, for a few seconds...) that's not too far off the best results of WETA Digital. Give Seth Green a handful of Star Wars figures and a digicam and he could probably come up with something that stayed within canon in about 20 minutes.

    But George Lucas, with all his years of experience, skill, contacts and vast gobs of cash can't make a couple of seasons of a watchable TV show because the technology's not there yet? Absolute bollocks.

    1. Re:Hey Everybody - Remember Me...? by thijsh · · Score: 1

      I'm fairy sure the guys from Star Wreck could make an awesome funny Star Wars movie too (but currently they're busy with a new original movie Iron Sky, I can't wait to see the result!), but there are other great low budget fan movies out there, just search for Star Wars Revelations, it's pretty decent (including FX) and they had a shoestring budget too. Look and learn George...

  35. Lucas Has a History of Bad TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lest we forget, Lucas has quite a HISTORY with television failures...

  36. Not the George Lucas... by denzacar · · Score: 1
    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  37. Is it already shot? by ThePolkapunk · · Score: 1

    When asked about the status of the show, Lucas said that the footage “sits on the shelf.”

    Does this mean that the the show has already been recorded? He's just waiting until special effects are cheap enough to add them in? Or is the footage "figuratively" sitting on the shelf?

    --
    Dear diary: Today I stuffed some dolls full of dead rats I put in the blender.
  38. Why doesn't he just use models and puppets? by Viewsonic · · Score: 1

    I mean, the models and puppets Lucasfilm comes up with are heads and tails better than any of the 3D stuff we've been seeing. You can watch stuff like Star Wars Ep 4-6 and see how much better the models look compared to the Ep 1-3 3D effects. You can look at episodes of Star Trek TNG and see how well those models worked in conjunction with 3D effects. Yeah, on the older stuff you can see the model frame splice edges, but today it is trivial to get rid of that and make it all look seamless. GO BACK TO USING MODELS.

    1. Re:Why doesn't he just use models and puppets? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Because they fired all those guys and threw out the props years ago.

    2. Re:Why doesn't he just use models and puppets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think that CG is the cause of all the problems? Many films out there use CG, and they're fine. The problem isn't the films. It's the directors.

  39. the real reason by theCat · · Score: 1

    More likely George discovered too late that there was already a really successful "Star____" television series out there and realized he didn't want to play second fiddle to that other guy.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
  40. Re:You could always make them 1/10 shorter or prod by swanzilla · · Score: 2

    10/10 - 1/10 = 9/10.

  41. He's referring Jar Jar's accent by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    They can't pay anyone enough to actually talk like that on camera. That's part of the reason they Jar Jar was CGI.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  42. Effects Enhanced shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shows like Babylon 5, Star Trek, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate (SG1, Atlantis, Universe), Caprica are one type of thing. When you use effects to enhance the story it makes for compelling storytelling. When you use effects because "It Looks Cool" you've missed the entire point of the effect. Based on the fact that shows like this have come to a natural end and not tried milking every last drop from the fountain in addition to the main network for these deciding to focus more on fantasy/fiction I think that the Clone Wars animated series is good enough.

  43. Simple Economics by fotoflojoe · · Score: 2

    Why is George worried? The show may cost 10 times more than it's worth to produce, but it's Star Wars, he'll be able to sell it for 100 times what it's worth to the networks.

  44. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he won't be able to screw up the mythology any more than he already has.

  45. Strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is the cost so prohibitive? "Firefly" looked as good as the prequels did... "Battlestar Galactica" pulled off amazing FX... Heck, even "Babylon 5" was able to do big space opera on a shoestring budget years ago... But Lucas can't figure out how to do it?

  46. Give it to J. Michael Straczynski by Hidyman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He would do it on time, under budget and make a better story to boot.

    --
    You can't take the sky from me ...
    1. Re:Give it to J. Michael Straczynski by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 1

      Indeed. He made Babylon 5 for a $600,000 per episode. Which is amazing, even if you count inflation.

  47. LucasSpeak translation droid at your service, sir by elrous0 · · Score: 2

    No, I'm pretty sure "lack of technology" is LucasSpeak for "No network in their right mind wants to pick up this piece of shit show."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  48. Clones Wars by jschmitz · · Score: 1

    TK-421 Why aren't you at your post

  49. Oh George, I stopped believing your lies long ago. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1
    FTFI

    Why did you make Episode 4 before Episode 1, 2 and 3?

    George Lucas: When I began writing the story for Star Wars, it became so big that I couldn’t fit all my ideas into one film. I started to break the story up into trilogies. The first trilogy told the story of Anakin Skywalker’s descent into darkness. The second trilogy gave us the story of how Luke Skywalker defeated the Sith. The third trilogy gives us the time when the Jedi finally find a way to destroy the dark side. I also came up with a fourth trilogy, but it was unrelated to the first three trilogies.

    It became clear that I was looking at nine separate movies. I had to decide which trilogy to begin with. At the time, sci-fi movies didn’t do well at the box office. I thought that Star Wars might be a one shot deal in that Star Wars might not make enough money to warrant the creation of sequels. I decided my best bet was to start with the most exciting trilogy and hope that it struck a chord with audiences.

    I decided to make the middle trilogy first because I thought it was the most exciting of the trilogies and gave me the best chance to hit it out of the park with the people. Fortunately, my genius was right about it all. It makes me look so gifted in hind sight because there has never been a film bigger than Star Wars back in 1977.

    When in reality -- Mr. Lucas started at "Episode 4" and jumped right into the middle of a story arc in order to give the feel of the good 'ol Sci-Fi serials he had enjoyed watching himself... No other scripts or films were planned at that time, hence the lack of a rising action at the end of the movie (that nearly all movies with planned sequels have) -- Indeed Sci-Fi flicks didn't do so well at the time, not many had the production value that StarWars had.

    Princess Leia was not planned to be Luke's sister, hence their French kiss...

    Vader was never planned to be Luke's father until a hasty plot change for Return of the Jedi -- Hence why in A New Hope Obi-wan says Vader killed Luke's father -- The working title of the "6th" episode was Revenge of the Jedi, but this didn't fit with the Jedi ideals (which were also constantly evolving in George's Mind).

    Sequels rarely do better than the original they continue. Claiming yourself a "genius" after the fact is ever so self serving.

    Search around, you'll find out for yourself... Oh, screw it; Here.

    Do I believe this professional liar (read: story-teller)? No. What I believe is that the general public doesn't go much for these types of stories as they once did. Interests are cyclic. Remember the 80s and its love of all things robotic? Now we're seeing the passing of the interest in Wizards/witchcraft. The fluctuation of zombies and comic-book movies will continue to underscore a few quick popularities of themes such as Vampire movies. Many of the recent film trends are part of a larger passing trend of making protagonists out of the traditional antagonists. Sci-Fi may pick up again if we ever put men on mars...

    My bet is that someone did Market research and discovered: It's simply not the right time for more sci-fi series on TV -- Esp. with their core audience migrating to other forms of entertainment and other distribution channels as well. Perhaps also, Mr. Lucas is just out of ideas (or good plots for them) for a while -- it's not unheard of among writers... How many stories can you tell in the same fictional universe before you get bored or use up all the compelling plots?

  50. Not an accident by Dan+East · · Score: 2

    Damn right. I'm convinced Eps 4-6 were only made good by accident. The chances of George Lucas accidentally making something that is not utter shit again are quite slim.

    No, it wasn't accident, and what prompts me to say that are the number of other good movies and entire series that he fostered. I think there are a number of factors. One is that the technology available during his best years (Star Wars 4-6, Indiana Jones Trilogy, American Graffiti, etc) was such that it limited him and kept him more focused on other aspects of movie making that he is good at. When he would say "Let's show this doing that in this way" and the FX people would say "No way that's simply impossible, but we can try doing something different this way - we'll figure it out and get back to you" then that made other parts of the movie matter more to Lucus that he could actually control. When it came to Episodes 1-3, and Lucas described a CGI alien clown, the FX people said - "yeah, we like a good challenge and there's nothing we can't do visually in this day and age, so let's make JarJar!"

    Another thing is it is easy to start from scratch and just make things up, which is what he did with Star Wars. Did he honestly give any real thought to a backstory and how everything tied in together with the very first movie? Nah. He wasn't even looking at sequels, let alone prequels, when he invented the Star Wars universe. Star Wars was a single stand-alone movie all unto itself. Period. It did not need to be anything more than that. Empire Strikes Back was merely the same cast of characters in the same universe doing a whole new set of things that really had nothing to do with the first movie at all as far as plot lines and story arcs go. With the first 3 movies he had to go back and follow FACTS he had already created. He had to shoehorn a plot to fit who was where in first Star Wars and how they got there. That is a WHOLE lot harder than just making something up and leaving lots of pre-story elements simply up to the viewer's imagination. And speaking of that imagination, everyone already had at least some degree of preconceived notion as to what happened before Star Wars, and that is NEVER going to exactly match what Lucas himself imagined when he started writing the prequels. Thus some degree of disappointment was built in.

    I think Lucas is (was) best at fostering entirely new projects from scratch, then more or less providing resources, bringing in good screenplay authors and directors, and then letting others run with those ideas (Indiana Jones, for example). I think his problem is when he micromanages things, and tries to get into lots of details with really complex plot lines which is best left to others more gifted in those areas.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Not an accident by KewlPC · · Score: 2

      Raiders of the Lost Ark was good because of people *NOT* named George Lucas. Lucas came up with some good ideas, but also some really bad ones that Spielberg and others shot down.

      Basically, once Lucas had the initial idea, it was turned into a good movie by Steven Spielberg, Lawrence Kasdan, and Harrison Ford.

  51. Lucas needs editors and screenwriters new tech by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    Come on, who is George trying to kid? His last 3 movies were a suckfest compared to SW and TESB. He needs to stop directing and writing, and let talented people do the work with his oversight.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  52. What Could Possibly Save Lucas by Greyfox · · Score: 2
    Is that there are still plenty of 10-year-olds in the world who also don't know what good storytelling is, and are easily impressed by gee-whiz special effects. When I was 10, the ORIGINAL Battlestar Galactica was enough for me. Just have one big in-space fight per episode and pew-pew with the spaceships and I was happy. Today I can't make myself sit through an episode of that shit.

    I don't know why Lucas feels the need to break the bank, though. He could crap pretty much any special effects into a show and the kids won't know the difference. Pair up his shows with some sugary cereal and Star-Wars toy commercials and he's pretty much set to ride that money train for another generation.

    He's almost acting as if he expects the rest of us to watch it. Ain't gonna happen, judging form the hate pouring out in this article. Personally, I'd rather curl up with some old Twilight Zone videos. Most of the episodes I've seen have almost no special effects and are mostly psychological. That's some good writing right there. I doubt Lucas would recognize it if someone hit him upside the head with them.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:What Could Possibly Save Lucas by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Is that there are still plenty of 10-year-olds in the world who also don't know what good storytelling is, and are easily impressed by gee-whiz special effects. When I was 10, the ORIGINAL Battlestar Galactica was enough for me. Just have one big in-space fight per episode and pew-pew with the spaceships and I was happy. Today I can't make myself sit through an episode of that shit.

      The thing about the original Battlestar Galactica is that some of it was actually quite good. But the original run of the show (i.e. not "1980") was very short and it wound up being something like 50%-60% bad episodes.

      So a lot depends on which episode you watch.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  53. Sure sign of a man with zero imagination by blair1q · · Score: 1

    We're finding out just how little his "vision" had to do with the success of the original trilogy.

    If he can't find a way to take this vast array of characters and make a compelling TV series, something thousands of production companies have done in the past, without some super-whizzy effect he's insisting on, then he's about as intelligent and artistic as a cantaloupe tossed from a roof on 53rd Street.

  54. No amount of technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No amount of technology can make up for Lucas's terrible story writing skills.

  55. Awww! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aww! And I was SO looking forward to weekly doses of "Jar Jar's Big Adventure."

    Or was it the other series: "Anakin's a whiney bitch"?

  56. The wonders of technology by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

    Technology saves the day again!

    Though really people, if you know you are going to hate something how about just not watching it and finding something else to do with the time?

  57. Re:Lucas needs editors and screenwriters new tech by creat3d · · Score: 1

    He needs to stop directing and writing, and let talented people do the work.

    FTFY.

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  58. The Precedent Is There... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    George Lucas showed us previously just how awesome special effects can be on TV, back when he did the Star Wars Holiday Special. We all want more of that, for sure!

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  59. Lack of technology is always the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that kind of a given? The only problem with me flying and living forever is a lack of technology - it doesn't exist yet. It's not that my goals are too lofty. The reason I'm fat? Technology doesn't exist to make me thin? Reason I have AIDS? Technology doesn't exist to cure it.

  60. Re:Oh George, I stopped believing your lies long a by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    Exactly. Anyone who believes his nonsense about having written 9 stories, etc and then choosing to jump in at the middle are fucking braindead fanbois. You can even watch the documentary for Episode I to notice how he talks about not even thinking up the stories for the prequels until the 90s.

  61. Oh the Joys Denied to Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lucas is just polishing up the scripts to the first 5 episodes:
    1- The Misadventures of Jar Jar Binks and his Friend Tur-d'o the semi-rancid Ewok
    2- Darth Vader: from whiny mama's boy to badass in 1 episode or less
    3- The battle of the robots vs the other robots where nobody actually died or cared
    4- Maartu, the inexplicably humanoid Jedi alien with the so-so midichlorian count
    5- The adventures of U8-AS - the cleaner droid that looks like a guy with square boots inside a box, but is actually very advanced technology

  62. Time Machine by Pete+Venkman · · Score: 1

    The technology he is referring to is a time machine that would allow him to go back in the past and make us forget how much he has fucked up Star Wars in the time since 1997.

  63. Teen guys like things that blow up by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    I read a while back that something like 80% of all movie tickets are bought by males between 15 and 22. (These guys will go see a movie they like 3, 4 or more times, which skews the data quite a bit.) That demographic doesn't care much about plot, acting, character development, or other fooferah. Basically the purpose of all those things is just to carry the movie to the next car crash or explosion - preferably with at least one awesome never-seen-before special effect. So to make a lot of money, you only need enough plot string the action along between explosions. Lucas, Cameron, various other blockbuster directors and producers, use that formula to make a $crapton. It's worth noting that Lucas spent many hours watching 'B-movies' from the 1940s and 1950s, especially the WWII fighter-pilot scenes, to inform the script and the flight choreography. Those movies were mostly the same way - simple plots (written in one week, shot the next, no time for complex dialog and character development).

    I went and saw 'Avatar' at Imax 3D - minimal plot, cardboard characters, impossible science, and really cool effects - and I enjoyed it, knowing what to expect. I like 3D a lot. If I wanted complex characters I could go see 'Wuthering Heights' or something - and I haven't seen the 16-22 demographic for a long time - my daughter is almost old enough to have kids that age.

    I seriously irritated my wife when I described 'Titanic' as 'Terminator for girls' - which it was. :D Same formula, except you add some relational tearjerking.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  64. Wow, this guy can spend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A tenth of the cost of a feature film, which he clocks at $150mil at the low end. That would put his desired cost at $15mil per episode. I'm pretty certain I read somewhere that Babylon 5 was shot at $1mil per episode. I guess that's a problem for Lucas, when you have to disguise crappy plot lines with whizz-bang technology.

  65. Re:LucasSpeak translation droid at your service, s by hexagonc · · Score: 1

    Why wouldn't they? You can't tell me that there's not a single network that wouldn't at least give it a try. I would think that there would be plenty of story material from the Old Republic alone. Just look at the success of the Knights of the Old Republic games. You could even go further than that. With time spans in the tens of thousands of years (the Republic is over twenty thousand years old!), imagine learning how hyperdrive was invented or how humans first reacted to extraterrestrial life. Star Wars is a gold mind of potential stories.

  66. Terra Nova by TheSync · · Score: 1

    I think this show will prove you can make a good SF TV show on a reasonable budget with excellent special effects...

    1. Re:Terra Nova by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 1

      Terra Nova does not have a reasonable budget. It used about $16 mil for the pilot, and about $5mil for any subsequent episode, which is higher than the network TV average of $3mil.

  67. Star Wars... by creat3d · · Score: 1

    The only thing related to SW worth watching are Red Letter Media's reviews of episodes 1-3. http://redlettermedia.com/ If you haven't seen them yet, I can't recommend them enough.

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  68. Heard this before. by Animats · · Score: 1

    I heard the same thing a dozen years ago from another major director. He'd produced several successful films which had live actors and CGI characters interacting, but the cost was high and the staff was too large. He spent most of his time managing the huge animation staff rather than directing.

    He liked "Reboot", the TV show, which was produced on a weekly basis by a staff of about 30. That was the first completely computer-animated TV series. His hope was that the production quality you could get operating on that scale would improve to the level needed for a feature film. He wanted technology that would get the cost of a major feature film down to $20 million or so. He'd have more artistic freedom then. The $100 million pictures are so preplanned that, by the end of preproduction, all the creative work is done. Then it's just a manufacturing job.

    So far, nobody has had a breakthrough on costs. "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" tried, but that came in around $70 million. In "Sky Captain", if nobody touches it, it's CGI. That didn't cut costs as much as expected. CGI seems to have replaced the old army of set carpenters, painters, and modelmakers with an army of CGI set designers, texture artists, and animators.

    At the low end, there's been progress. See New Media Animation, out of Taiwan. Fastest animation house in the world - finished animations in an hour and 30 minutes. For Slashdot readers, I recommend NMA's version of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.

  69. Re:Oh George, I stopped believing your lies long a by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

    Sequels rarely do better than the original they continue. Claiming yourself a "genius" after the fact is ever so self serving.

    I think Lucas is frequently full of shit, but his use of "genius" was actually humble. He's using it in the original sense of a personal minor deity (daemon in Greek, genius in Latin). He's basically saying he got lucky, as the sentence following that one makes clear.

  70. Life Day by klm1974 · · Score: 1

    Maybe George is waiting for a time when he can outdo the Star Wars Holiday Special

  71. He should use Star Wars fan fiction by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Perhaps he should use material from the extensive library of Star Wars fan fiction. Many of those books certainly contain better stories than the prequels, and in the same spirit of the originals.

    Some of the authors are (IMHO) pretty good, such as Timothy Zahn. Also, the fan fiction authors fit their fiction in with existing fan fiction to reduce conflicts. That's something that really bugged me with the prequels, as the prequels completely ignored all the existing fan fiction out there.

    In my view George Lucas needs to make use of what he already has, decent stories. But I guess he's never bothered reading the fiction of his own fans.

    I'd quite like to see this series, on condition that its potential is realised, because it does have alot of potential. Can you tell that I'm a Star Wars fan? ;)

  72. Re:LucasSpeak translation droid at your service, s by Caraig · · Score: 1

    And no matter how much money the Old Republic stuff made, no matter how much fans love that era and those stories, no matter how much they might make (at least internal) consistency and sense... Lucas will overwrite all of it in favor of what he cobbles together.

    Lucas is a control freak -- that's not a bad thing when you're aiming for quality storytelling and you really are a top notch storyteller. It's a definite bad thing when you're a mediocre or moderate storyteller, and you don't trust anyone else with your creative work or ideas. He cannot at all stand anyone else playing in his sandbox, because they don't share his unique vision of the sandbox. So when a bunch of folks make a pretty keen sandcastle that's got flying buttresses and towers and complicated and exciting architecture, Lucas will kick it all down and replace it with his... adequate, technically good but nothing-to-write-home-about sand towers he makes from buckets. (Let's break the metaphor: He has good basic filmmaking skills, but not much more than that; I think he bought into the Joseph Campbell interview a bit too much. If he stuck with space opera instead of trying to make them deep mythological passion plays, his films would be a lot better. This of course is IMHO.) There's a reason why Empire Strikes Back is considered the best film of the franchise.

    --
    "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
  73. He is absolutely right, it is too expensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George Lucas is right. The technology needed to render the kind of effects in Star Wars doesn't exist in any kind of reasonable price range to put it on television.

    That's because there is no such computer analog to the human imagination yet that could read a script and cough up a TV show in real time with believable special effects.

    We already have that technology tho, in our heads! Any one who really enjoys the Star Wars universe outside the original three movies is more than likely enjoying them in book form, where real, deep stories are available in abundance that already chronicle the life and times of all the characters that people love from the first three movies and take them on adventures way more fascinating and amazing than ANH, ESB, ot RotJ.

    The best part of these adventures is that Lucas didnt write any of them. Hes just had people oversee them to make sure they stay within the parameters of canon.

    So the technology he wants is to be able to write a short story, feed it into a computer, and have it puke out a TV episode or storyline. And hes right, anything that can do that right now its prohibitively expensive, if it exists.

    Too bad. That means he will just have to stick to good old fashioned human storytelling, which seems to work for every other Sci Fi franchise out there: Star Trek, BSG, Stargate, Doctor Who, etc.

    Oh, and Star Wars already has a TV series. Its called the Clone Wars, and its a lot better than the prequels. The Voice Acting is intelligent and believable, and their effects capability is essentially limitless since its in CGI. My only complaint is that theyre gonna milk that three or so year period of in universe canon for so long that eventually its going to be literally impossible for it to have all happened because there will be too many stories for it to all be shoehorned into 3 years, and then Star Wars will be reduced to...the Simpsons, who have been milking the same year of existence for 25 years now.

    Plus, I would really love to see CGI used to open up an entirely new part of the Star Wars timeline that hasnt even been touched. What about Palaptines training under his master, years and years before episode one even began? What about that big gap between ANH and ESB? What about the time period between the current group of novels 'Fate of the Jedi' and the 'Star Wars: Legacy' comics that take place 80 years later? What about the state of the Galaxy 500 years later? The possibilities are endless and you just keep milking the same timeline over and over. Well, whatever.

    Rant over.

  74. I've... by imakemusic · · Score: 1

    I've got a bad feeling about this...

    --
    Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  75. Re:LucasSpeak translation droid at your service, s by Serpents · · Score: 1

    I think that somewhere deep Lucas has created a magnificent, rich and unique world, but he should basically sit down with some screenwriters, a director, tell them the story he envisions like our grandparents used to tell us fairy tales, and then get out of their way an let them turn it into a movie.

  76. It's like... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Millions of voices cried out in fear, and were suddenly silenced...

    (in relief)

    --
    -Styopa
  77. Except by Snaller · · Score: 1

    They are cut because they don't bring in enough money - surplus money depends on how much it costs to make a show - if its a cheap ass show it can continue with a lot lower ratings. If its very expensive it needs a lot higher ratings.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  78. Re:Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was Losts budget? That show had 2 good seasons. Sorry, the rest were crap in comaprison to 1,2.

    And your post is accurate. I ahve a 6 year old and he loves Star Wars. He's seen the movies for the most part but alot of his peers watch the cartoons and everything else and they love it. Today, Lucas is catering to 6 year old boys.

    The problem is that alot of us grew up on epsiodes 4-6 and loved them. It was part of our childhood. And we need to admit that we are simply trying to reach that latered state of awe that gets harder and harder to acheive as we get older. Today at 35, I ahve a very hard time watchning movies. Most are the same recycled crap. But those same moveis to me at 15 would have been great because they are not recycled crap to a 15 year old. In my late 20s, the special effects thing just stopped working. That would get me to a theater to see a movie but not anymore. The thing is, who goes to theaters? People under 20 probably make up over half of sales. Hollywood knows what it is doing, It is conducting a busienss.

  79. Re:LucasSpeak translation droid at your service, s by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Why wouldn't they?

    Because it costs a lot of money to produce and promote a show. And no one wants to invest in a show if they know it's going to be despised by critics and fans alike. Would YOU like to be the poor bastard who greenlit the "Star Wars Holiday Special"?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  80. FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is like saying Final Fantasy 13 is better than Final Fantasy 6 because it has better special effects...

  81. asking for things they are not known to give by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can understand if there is an emotional attachment to a body of work. but to be critical, you'd have to be objective first. his body of work for SW was always expected to be a technical achievement coupled by his ability to tell a story. its what he does. its what people expect from him. its what he's known for. whether you expect him to tell you a good story or improve the way he writes it, it is what it is.

    I see this 'larger' expectation from him is like asking beethoven to compose a techno hit.. and if he was unable to do that well wouldn't lessen him as an artist, would it? its not what he does. lucas does what he does. so many have followed their own unique paths to success, and we can't expect them to offer more than they already have.

    he's made a career pushing technology and he's probably trying to leverage his next attempt to do something commercial as well as unique