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."

45 of 309 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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=-
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
  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 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'...

    3. 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!
    4. 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?
  3. 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 elastic_collision · · Score: 2

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

    2. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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 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
  6. 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 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.
  7. Legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

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

  8. 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.

  9. 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 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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 ddt · · Score: 2

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

    3. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Re:You could always make them 1/10 shorter or prod by swanzilla · · Score: 2

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

  17. 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.

  18. 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 ...
  19. 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.
  20. 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.

  21. 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?