All of you seem to be hung up on the notion that visual effects = pushing the medium forward. I do admit that it's definitely an aspect of pushing the medium forward, but definitely not the entire notion.
That's not what we're arguing. It's not just about special effects, it's the use of special effects to advance visual storytelling. The answer is yes, Star Wars was absolutely revolutionary in that regard.
Take Citizen Kane, for example. Wonderful visual effects (the painted sets that are spliced with film negatives, for example), but that isn't the sole reason it's known as a defining film in cinema. Orson Welles employed multiple techniques that place it among the movies that truly pushed motion pictures forward (things like use of shadows/light, things like deep depth of field, etc.).
Right, he used visual effects and techniques to tell a story. He was a pioneer. As was Lucas.
Hell, Citizen Kane (among others) inspired a whole damn style and genre of filmmaking. (Film Noir)
Film noir existed before Citizen Kane.
Also, Lucas and Spielberg were among the new wave of directors who pioneered the modern blockbuster, and advanced the genre of science fiction. Would space opera be what it is without Star Wars? Certainly not!
But in terms of film techniques, the meat of storytelling and filmmaking, it's pretty standard fare.
You seem to be under the confusing impression that somehow a film's plot is reflective of how innovative it is. You are aware that there is an entire school of filmmaking - art cinema - that treats plot as of secondary importance if not outright ignores it, right?
And I mean, come on. Did Battleship Potemkin have a new and innovative plot? Did I Am Cuba have a new and innovative plot? Did Man with a Movie Camera even have a plot?
Star Wars isn't a movie you walk away from and say, "Wow, George Lucas is a true auteur. Someone who changes the way we view films.".
... Of course he was. What are you talking about?
and there's a reason for that. What does Star Wars do that changes editing systems?
Actually, Star Wars did change the conventions of editing an action movie. There's a behind the scenes that goes into that. Their original cut was terrible because it was edited along conventional techniques, and they had to go back and re-edit it.
Use of light and shadow? A revolution in use of sound? Any revolutionary filming technique (stuff like Soviet montage and Sergei Eisenstein)?
"What did Star Wars do that was innovative?"
"Many, many, many, many things. It changed the face of movie making forever."
"Yeah, but WHAT ELSE DID IT DO?"
You're rather bending over backwards here to justify your pretentiousness.
The fact is Star Wars was a benchmark of science fiction and a pioneer in so many ways. The fact that it didn't invent everything is not an excuse for saying it wasn't innovative, nor that it didn't advance cinema. Of course it did.
Meh, it's not simply about plot. It's about editing techniques, filmmaking techniques.
I'd say the majority of film theorists would disagree with your assessment that George Lucas was an auteur. I mean, can you really distinguish his style of filmmaking from Kershner? Marquand? In my opinion, no.
Star Wars changed editing systems? You'll need some sort of citation for that. Watching the film, I don't see it, but that doesn't mean it's there or not there. I could have missed it.
My only problem with your line of thinking in regards to special effects and visual storytelling is that your argument can be applied to vapid pieces of film like Enter the Void and Avatar. Avatar in particular because it has a plot that's similarly too familiar (though obviously Star Wars is much better in this regard), and has special effects that you could argue advanced film.
You don't have to inform me of schools of cinema, trust me on that one. This is a field I'm pretty knowledgeable in, no need to talk down to me, Highroller. Art cinema has a much different function than narrative cinema, obviously. I didn't make that argument (regarding plot) at all. The straw man is already dead, no need to attack him some more.
I think a better argument is that Star Wars changed VFX forever. That would hold more water. In terms of the entirety of filmmaking, it doesn't make nearly as many strides (if any at all).
I'm not trying to be pretentious, I simply have knowledge and an opinion, and I'm trying to make an argument. Not trying to talk down to anyone here.
In regards to Film Noir, many examples exist of different movies that contain elements, but I'd argue no movie before Citizen Kane contributed to the genre nearly as much. Innovation at it's purest.
I'm not trying to be pretentious, I simply have knowledge and an opinion, and I'm trying to make an argument. Not trying to talk down to anyone here.
You are...failing.
Also, you said up above
What does Star Wars do that changes editing systems? Use of light and shadow? A revolution in use of sound? Any revolutionary filming technique (stuff like Soviet montage and Sergei Eisenstein)?
Well, lets look at sound.
A new hope was the first film in dolby stero. Sounds pretty innovative. It was also highly innovative in the use and creation of sound effects. It's the first real VFX spectacular - and if you think that doesn't require changes to editing techniques, you know less about films than you think.
Go watch a new hope, and then watch any effects-driven scifi film of its era - new hope is miles ahead of the competition.
Oh, and on Avatar: No, I didn't think the effects were that far ahead of the competition. (Indeed in spots it's worse than return of the king, made by the same production house a half decade earlier). It's good, no doubt, but it pioners almost exactly no new techniques other than "Hey, 3D! You remember Jaws 3D? No? Good, lets try it again!"
Star Wars AND Avatar were innovative and revolutionary. Both have derivative plots but changed the way movies were made thereafter and invented things that are now standard. Hell, James Cameron invented a new camera for Avatar. The effects WERE innovative, but it was going for different things than Return of the King was. Avatar was, and remains, the only movie worth watching in 3D because of how well they utilize the depth of field available for 3D. There was a lot of tech developed for Avatar that's pretty standard these days.
There's a direct line for visual effects leaps forward that runs from King Kong all the way up through Avatar that runs through Star Wars, too.
They both also changed the industry for the worse. Star Wars was the first in a long line of effects-driven blockbusters that studios began using as 'tentpoles' to the detriment of everything else. Avatar was responsible for the 3D craze. Blech to both.
Let's be real here: Lucas is an indie director who accidently hit it big because his budget forced decisions that ended up making one of the most iconic films of all time. Lucas was heavily influenced by Kurasawa (as were, for that matter, Spielberg and Coppola). Star Wars is a classic Samurai story told in space with World War II aesthetics and some Buck Rodgers charm.
As for Citizen Kane, that's hardly a fair comparison. Star Wars isn't a pioneer outside of Visual Effects AND Aesthetics. What Lucas DID do, with ANH at least, was perfect all the derivative elements he was taking from elsewhere. Sometimes that's just as important as innovation.
How am I talking down to anyone? If anything, people have been continually talking down to me in this thread, yet I digress.
I'm a film theory student, not that my opinion is law or anything like that, but I do have some educational background in this subject. Doesn't validate my opinion, but just wanted to give you a background of where I'm coming from.
As for Star Wars being the first VFX spectacle, I'd disagree. There were definitely effect driven spectacles far before Star Wars. One that immediately comes to mind is Thief of Baghdad, the 1940 version by Michael Powell. Known for it's great use of Technicolor, and one of the first big budget movies to use the green screen technique. Definitely a technological marvel during it's day, with a rather thin plot.
Star Wars wasn't the first film to use Dolby Stereo, that honor would go to Ken Russell's Lisztomania, which came out two years before Star Wars did.
You don't give Avatar nearly enough credit in the visuals department, it did almost as much as Star Wars did in the VFX department. You'll need to specify the changes in editing techniques in regards to VFX and Star Wars.
George Lucas did a good job, but a film auteur? Hell no! At least, I don't think so. If that makes me pretentious, then I'm sorry but that's how I feel.
My only problem with your line of thinking in regards to special effects and visual storytelling is that your argument can be applied to vapid pieces of film like Enter the Void and Avatar.
No, and I've already stated this is the difference between A New Hope and the Prequels. The Prequels advanced special effects. Star Wars pioneered not just special effects and visual effects, but also what those effects could be used to do to tell a story.
And frankly, that's all it needed to do to prove you wrong. You said Star Wars never pushed the envelope. Except it did.
Saying that Star Wars didn't invent everything, or that __ director was a more innovative director than Lucas doesn't change this. It doesn't matter if Truffaut did more than Lucas did. Star Wars is still a film series that pushed the envelope.
So, instead of trying to backpedal with, "Well it didn't push the envelope in ways besides the ways in which it did push the envelope, which weren't as many ways as other envelope pushers," maybe you could just acknowledge you misspoke and we can move forward?
Avatar in particular because it has a plot that's similarly too familiar (though obviously Star Wars is much better in this regard), and has special effects that you could argue advanced film.
I don't think anyone has any argument that Avatar didn't advance special effects.
I'm not trying to be pretentious
Well, guess what...
In regards to Film Noir, many examples exist of different movies that contain elements, but I'd argue no movie before Citizen Kane contributed to the genre nearly as much. Innovation at it's purest.
Dude, first of all, The Maltese Falcon came out a month after Kane did. Are you going to tell me that they saw Kane, and then filmed, edited, and distributed that movie in a month? That should be the first hint that something's off about what you're saying.
Let's be clear, Citizen Kane is one of the most influential films of all time. You could argue its influence on anything, and certainly its influence on noir. But no, film noir existed before Citizen Kane.
George Lucas did a good job, but a film auteur? Hell no! At least, I don't think so.
Yeah, I misspoke. I can admit that. Star Wars pushed the envelope in terms of VFX. I'll admit that all day. However, you'll have to be more specific in how Lucas' revolutionized how effects could tell a story. Also you seemed to miss (intentionally or not, I don't know) my question regarding how Star Wars revolutionized editing techniques.
But I won't be called pretentious while being spoken down to. You can call me whatever you'd like, but the way you argue is downright condescending at times. Can't we all just be a little civil? Instead of asking redundant questions and intentionally ignoring other questions I pose?
I try to pose my arguments to invite other opinions. I'd like to be treated with similar courtesy.
Now, I already answered your question regarding Lucas' status as an auteur, but you seemed to miss it. Can you distinguish Lucas' approach to filmmaking from Kershner's or Marchand's? If Lucas was an auteur, you should easily be able to. That's what the auteur theory is really all about.
I'm more than willing to admit I may be wrong, but I'd like a little bit of proof to some statements you make.
Yeah, I misspoke. I can admit that. Star Wars pushed the envelope in terms of VFX. I'll admit that all day. However, you'll have to be more specific in how Lucas' revolutionized how effects could tell a story.
I did already answer that. The slave/computer controlled camera techniques pioneered by star wars are some of the most important effects techniques out there. For example, you more-or-less literally cannot make a decent version of lord of the rings with full sized actors as both hobbits and non hobbits without these techniques.
Also you seemed to miss (intentionally or not, I don't know) my question regarding how Star Wars revolutionized editing techniques.
But I won't be called pretentious while being spoken down to. You can call me whatever you'd like, but the way you argue is downright condescending at times. Can't we all just be a little civil? Instead of asking redundant questions and intentionally ignoring other questions I pose?
I try to pose my arguments to invite other opinions. I'd like to be treated with similar courtesy.
Now, I already answered your question regarding Lucas' status as an auteur, but you seemed to miss it. Can you distinguish Lucas' approach to filmmaking from Kershner's or Marchand's? If Lucas was an auteur, you should easily be able to. That's what the auteur theory is really all about.
I'm more than willing to admit I may be wrong, but I'd like a little bit of proof to some statements you make.
For Rey's use of mind tricks, that was justified by Kylo trying to force interogate her. While she was inexperienced, she could reverse the 'polarity' of the interogation. This infuriates Ren and he leaves. She then has some knowledge of how to use mind tricks, think learning how to control a new muscle. She then tries it on the stormtrooper and eventually succeeds.
It's just a bit too much imo to give her "raw power" in the force and then also have her learn that so quickly. What's the point in even saying her powers are raw if she can pick something up so easily and is so superior to Kylo and his soldiers? It's just not very good writing; the characterization is either unclear or Rey is a protagonist with no known flaws and no potential for tension.
Luckily, Rey's status as protag of episode 7 is debatable, but I doubt that will be the case for future films.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
For Rey's use of mind tricks, that was justified by Kylo trying to force interogate her. While she was inexperienced, she could reverse the 'polarity' of the interogation. This infuriates Ren and he leaves. She then has some knowledge of how to use mind tricks, think learning how to control a new muscle. She then tries it on the stormtrooper and eventually succeeds.
It's just a bit too much imo to give her "raw power" in the force and then also have her learn that so quickly. What's the point in even saying her powers are raw if she can pick something up so easily and is so superior to Kylo and his soldiers? It's just not very good writing; the characterization is either unclear or Rey is a protagonist with no known flaws and no big potential for tension.
Luckily, Rey's status as protag of episode 7 is debatable, but I doubt that will be the case for future films.
It's not like luke ever had much training. When he force pulls his sabre he's had, what, half an hour's training from obiwan on the falcon? Up until the point luke meets Yoda, Rei has had roughly as much training. (MAybe more, as their is the implication she had some training as a child that she doesn't recall).
It's not like luke ever had much training. When he force pulls his sabre he's had, what, half an hour's training from obiwan on the falcon? Up until the point luke meets Yoda, Rei has had roughly as much training. (MAybe more, as their is the implication she had some training as a child that she doesn't recall).
Yes, but Luke was never shown or stated to be just broadly superior to Vader or Sidious. It's not her learning quickly that I have an issue with in and of itself, it's the whole situation.
I don't really like the impact it has on Kylo's character, either. He'd be even a bit more interesting if he had some vestige of power over her but still felt inferior on the whole.
I don't think the memories imply she was trained, I just had the notion it was her (presumably force-sensitive) family leaving her, not that she was trained at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
It's not like luke ever had much training. When he force pulls his sabre he's had, what, half an hour's training from obiwan on the falcon? Up until the point luke meets Yoda, Rei has had roughly as much training. (MAybe more, as their is the implication she had some training as a child that she doesn't recall).
Yes, but Luke was never shown or stated to be just broadly superior to Vader or Sidious. It's not her learning quickly that I have an issue with in and of itself, it's the whole situation.
I don't really like the impact it has on Kylo's character, either. He'd be even a bit more interesting if he had some vestige of power over her but still felt inferior on the whole.
I don't think the memories imply she was trained, I just had the notion it was her (presumably force-sensitive) family leaving her, not that she was trained at all.
"the whole situation" um ok I have no idea what that means.
If you're talking about her beating kylo in a fight, yes, she does...after he is shot in the side by chewie. The movie makes a massive, repeated point that Chewie's bowcaster *murders the ***** out of people*. Multiple times it hits someone and throws them across the room.
Kylo, having been shot with it and in *obvious* pain, probably not fighting to the top of his game. Also possibly mentally elsewhere as he did just kill his father and is kinda not ok with it.
edit:
Also,
Kylo doesn't want to kill her for most of the fight. HE's trying to turn her - it's the exact same reason VAder doesn't just curb stomp luke in Empire.
I don't think it's crazy to imagine that Rey simply has way more raw Force talent than Kylo Ren or even Luke Skywalker. The title of this movie is The Force Awakens. Implying that it was asleep before.
And if the title doesn't persuade you, consider this: the stormtrooper who frees Rey from the torture chamber is a cameo by
Daniel Craig. Rey has the mojo to mind-trick James Bond.
Probably redundant, but having seen the film twice in theaters now I just need to say this-
It's as if Abrams anticipated the *****storm that Rey beating Kylo Ren would cause, and so deliberately included a massive amount of scenes that highlight Chewie's bowcaster.
Seriously, rewatch the film. The bowcaster is probably highlighted every 10 minutes or so after Han and Chewie appear. It's pretty clear that Abrams wanted to place a lot of emphasis on it. And the fact that Kylo Ren got shot in the side by it and is clearly hurting bad.
Heck, the fact that Kylo Ren survived getting shot is a feat in of itself. Han killed three storm troopers with it, and he simply shot the ground (or some rocks) in front of them. It might as well be a cannon and not just random blaster.
As for Rey doing a jedi mind trick- I think this is a valid complaint. That being said, I don't intend to judge this film until I see the entire trilogy. The film was clearly written as a trilogy, and so calling "plot hole" and such doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I'm pretty sure Finn is supposed to be Force sensitive after all. When the New Order destroys the Republic worlds, he hears millions of voices crying out in terror and being suddenly silenced. It would also neatly explain how he broke through the stormtrooper conditioning.
If Rey was in Jedi training, then her memory of it has been erased (which I personally would find a rather tiresome plot development). Remember, she thinks Luke Skywalker and the Force are just a myth. Also, she seems to know what she's waiting for on Jakku -- she acts like somebody obsessed with her past, not somebody who doesn't remember having one.
Yea I highly doubt Rey is supposed to be trained for writing reasons. It would undermine what exists of her arc so far and doesn't so well with where I'm pretty sure she's going.
Also, when I was talking about how Rey is too superior to Kylo, I don't mean in the duel. I know he's trying to turn her and all, but I dislike how he never poses any threat to her ever. She can just use the force to overpower every plot obstacle and then has a specific technique like the mind trick after it's been said her strength is JUST raw... and she has a much stronger will than him too.
Don't get me wrong I quite like Kylo as a character but as a foil for Rey he exacerbates problems she already has as a character.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
Yeah, I misspoke. I can admit that. Star Wars pushed the envelope in terms of VFX. I'll admit that all day. However, you'll have to be more specific in how Lucas' revolutionized how effects could tell a story.
He utilized those effects to tell his story. How does anyone revolutionize narrative with special effects besides using them to tell a narrative? I don't understand the question.
Also you seemed to miss (intentionally or not, I don't know) my question regarding how Star Wars revolutionized editing techniques.
I mean, you said you studied film, used that to claim a level of expertise, used that claim of expertise to place yourself above others as an authority, and then made an appeal to your own authority to justify statements you'd previously made that were wrong - by your own admission.
So...
but the way you argue is downright condescending at times
Quote from LuckNorris »
I'm speaking English, aren't I?
Yours isn't?
Now, I already answered your question regarding Lucas' status as an auteur, but you seemed to miss it. Can you distinguish Lucas' approach to filmmaking from Kershner's or Marchand's?
Are you implying that Lucas doesn't have anything that makes him unique?
Hell, he might not always, especially these days, always be unique in a way that is positive, but he's certainly unique.
Quote from From Wikipedia »
auteur theory holds that a film reflects the director's personal creative vision, as if they were the primary "auteur" (the French word for "author"). In spite of—and sometimes even because of—the production of the film as part of an industrial process, the auteur's creative voice is distinct enough to shine through studio interference and the collective process.
If Avatar was 30 minutes shorter to match the running time of The Force Awakens, do you all think that Avatar would still be on top?
No. If it had engaging characters, clever dialogue, and a less obnoxious plot? Perhaps. But even had The Force Awakens not thrashed Avatar honestly by being the better movie, I would still have bet on The Force Awakens, because the Star Wars hype train >>> the James Cameron hype train.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The coincidence arguments in this thread are hilarious. I think my (mentally will) dog understand reality better then you guys :/
Every single event in your life is just as coincidental as Rey meeting Finn. What is the coincidence of two people meeting each other ? Seriously ?
Every single event in my life is not just as coincidental as
Finn finding the droid he needs almost instantly after crashing on the PLANET that contains it.
That said, there were not too many coincidences in my opinion, and it's nothing new for Star Wars anyway.
Poe have clearly set the TIE trajectory to that region of the planet before the TIE was taken down as he knew BB-8 was there. The ship would fall but he still managed to make it fall nearby his objective.
The region itself is very empty and that outpost is a focal point. Anyone searching for anything in that area should go there first - and that was the case for Finn and BB-8, reason why they met.
Right, he used visual effects and techniques to tell a story. He was a pioneer. As was Lucas.
Film noir existed before Citizen Kane.
Also, Lucas and Spielberg were among the new wave of directors who pioneered the modern blockbuster, and advanced the genre of science fiction. Would space opera be what it is without Star Wars? Certainly not!
You seem to be under the confusing impression that somehow a film's plot is reflective of how innovative it is. You are aware that there is an entire school of filmmaking - art cinema - that treats plot as of secondary importance if not outright ignores it, right?
And I mean, come on. Did Battleship Potemkin have a new and innovative plot? Did I Am Cuba have a new and innovative plot? Did Man with a Movie Camera even have a plot?
... Of course he was. What are you talking about?
Actually, Star Wars did change the conventions of editing an action movie. There's a behind the scenes that goes into that. Their original cut was terrible because it was edited along conventional techniques, and they had to go back and re-edit it.
"What did Star Wars do that was innovative?"
"Many, many, many, many things. It changed the face of movie making forever."
"Yeah, but WHAT ELSE DID IT DO?"
You're rather bending over backwards here to justify your pretentiousness.
The fact is Star Wars was a benchmark of science fiction and a pioneer in so many ways. The fact that it didn't invent everything is not an excuse for saying it wasn't innovative, nor that it didn't advance cinema. Of course it did.
I'd say the majority of film theorists would disagree with your assessment that George Lucas was an auteur. I mean, can you really distinguish his style of filmmaking from Kershner? Marquand? In my opinion, no.
Star Wars changed editing systems? You'll need some sort of citation for that. Watching the film, I don't see it, but that doesn't mean it's there or not there. I could have missed it.
My only problem with your line of thinking in regards to special effects and visual storytelling is that your argument can be applied to vapid pieces of film like Enter the Void and Avatar. Avatar in particular because it has a plot that's similarly too familiar (though obviously Star Wars is much better in this regard), and has special effects that you could argue advanced film.
You don't have to inform me of schools of cinema, trust me on that one. This is a field I'm pretty knowledgeable in, no need to talk down to me, Highroller. Art cinema has a much different function than narrative cinema, obviously. I didn't make that argument (regarding plot) at all. The straw man is already dead, no need to attack him some more.
I think a better argument is that Star Wars changed VFX forever. That would hold more water. In terms of the entirety of filmmaking, it doesn't make nearly as many strides (if any at all).
I'm not trying to be pretentious, I simply have knowledge and an opinion, and I'm trying to make an argument. Not trying to talk down to anyone here.
In regards to Film Noir, many examples exist of different movies that contain elements, but I'd argue no movie before Citizen Kane contributed to the genre nearly as much. Innovation at it's purest.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
You are...failing.
Also, you said up above
Well, lets look at sound.
A new hope was the first film in dolby stero. Sounds pretty innovative. It was also highly innovative in the use and creation of sound effects. It's the first real VFX spectacular - and if you think that doesn't require changes to editing techniques, you know less about films than you think.
Go watch a new hope, and then watch any effects-driven scifi film of its era - new hope is miles ahead of the competition.
Oh, and on Avatar: No, I didn't think the effects were that far ahead of the competition. (Indeed in spots it's worse than return of the king, made by the same production house a half decade earlier). It's good, no doubt, but it pioners almost exactly no new techniques other than "Hey, 3D! You remember Jaws 3D? No? Good, lets try it again!"
There's a direct line for visual effects leaps forward that runs from King Kong all the way up through Avatar that runs through Star Wars, too.
They both also changed the industry for the worse. Star Wars was the first in a long line of effects-driven blockbusters that studios began using as 'tentpoles' to the detriment of everything else. Avatar was responsible for the 3D craze. Blech to both.
Let's be real here: Lucas is an indie director who accidently hit it big because his budget forced decisions that ended up making one of the most iconic films of all time. Lucas was heavily influenced by Kurasawa (as were, for that matter, Spielberg and Coppola). Star Wars is a classic Samurai story told in space with World War II aesthetics and some Buck Rodgers charm.
As for Citizen Kane, that's hardly a fair comparison. Star Wars isn't a pioneer outside of Visual Effects AND Aesthetics. What Lucas DID do, with ANH at least, was perfect all the derivative elements he was taking from elsewhere. Sometimes that's just as important as innovation.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'm a film theory student, not that my opinion is law or anything like that, but I do have some educational background in this subject. Doesn't validate my opinion, but just wanted to give you a background of where I'm coming from.
As for Star Wars being the first VFX spectacle, I'd disagree. There were definitely effect driven spectacles far before Star Wars. One that immediately comes to mind is Thief of Baghdad, the 1940 version by Michael Powell. Known for it's great use of Technicolor, and one of the first big budget movies to use the green screen technique. Definitely a technological marvel during it's day, with a rather thin plot.
Star Wars wasn't the first film to use Dolby Stereo, that honor would go to Ken Russell's Lisztomania, which came out two years before Star Wars did.
You don't give Avatar nearly enough credit in the visuals department, it did almost as much as Star Wars did in the VFX department. You'll need to specify the changes in editing techniques in regards to VFX and Star Wars.
George Lucas did a good job, but a film auteur? Hell no! At least, I don't think so. If that makes me pretentious, then I'm sorry but that's how I feel.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
And frankly, that's all it needed to do to prove you wrong. You said Star Wars never pushed the envelope. Except it did.
Saying that Star Wars didn't invent everything, or that __ director was a more innovative director than Lucas doesn't change this. It doesn't matter if Truffaut did more than Lucas did. Star Wars is still a film series that pushed the envelope.
So, instead of trying to backpedal with, "Well it didn't push the envelope in ways besides the ways in which it did push the envelope, which weren't as many ways as other envelope pushers," maybe you could just acknowledge you misspoke and we can move forward?
I don't think anyone has any argument that Avatar didn't advance special effects.
Well, guess what...
Dude, first of all, The Maltese Falcon came out a month after Kane did. Are you going to tell me that they saw Kane, and then filmed, edited, and distributed that movie in a month? That should be the first hint that something's off about what you're saying.
Let's be clear, Citizen Kane is one of the most influential films of all time. You could argue its influence on anything, and certainly its influence on noir. But no, film noir existed before Citizen Kane.
Would you care to justify this statement?
But I won't be called pretentious while being spoken down to. You can call me whatever you'd like, but the way you argue is downright condescending at times. Can't we all just be a little civil? Instead of asking redundant questions and intentionally ignoring other questions I pose?
I try to pose my arguments to invite other opinions. I'd like to be treated with similar courtesy.
Now, I already answered your question regarding Lucas' status as an auteur, but you seemed to miss it. Can you distinguish Lucas' approach to filmmaking from Kershner's or Marchand's? If Lucas was an auteur, you should easily be able to. That's what the auteur theory is really all about.
I'm more than willing to admit I may be wrong, but I'd like a little bit of proof to some statements you make.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
I did already answer that. The slave/computer controlled camera techniques pioneered by star wars are some of the most important effects techniques out there. For example, you more-or-less literally cannot make a decent version of lord of the rings with full sized actors as both hobbits and non hobbits without these techniques.
I don't really like the impact it has on Kylo's character, either. He'd be even a bit more interesting if he had some vestige of power over her but still felt inferior on the whole.
I don't think the memories imply she was trained, I just had the notion it was her (presumably force-sensitive) family leaving her, not that she was trained at all.
If you're talking about her beating kylo in a fight, yes, she does...after he is shot in the side by chewie. The movie makes a massive, repeated point that Chewie's bowcaster *murders the ***** out of people*. Multiple times it hits someone and throws them across the room.
Kylo, having been shot with it and in *obvious* pain, probably not fighting to the top of his game. Also possibly mentally elsewhere as he did just kill his father and is kinda not ok with it.
edit:
Also,
And if the title doesn't persuade you, consider this: the stormtrooper who frees Rey from the torture chamber is a cameo by
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Probably redundant, but having seen the film twice in theaters now I just need to say this-
It's as if Abrams anticipated the *****storm that Rey beating Kylo Ren would cause, and so deliberately included a massive amount of scenes that highlight Chewie's bowcaster.
Seriously, rewatch the film. The bowcaster is probably highlighted every 10 minutes or so after Han and Chewie appear. It's pretty clear that Abrams wanted to place a lot of emphasis on it. And the fact that Kylo Ren got shot in the side by it and is clearly hurting bad.
Heck, the fact that Kylo Ren survived getting shot is a feat in of itself. Han killed three storm troopers with it, and he simply shot the ground (or some rocks) in front of them. It might as well be a cannon and not just random blaster.
As for Rey doing a jedi mind trick- I think this is a valid complaint. That being said, I don't intend to judge this film until I see the entire trilogy. The film was clearly written as a trilogy, and so calling "plot hole" and such doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Rey was definitely a padiwan, with some training.
If Rey was in Jedi training, then her memory of it has been erased (which I personally would find a rather tiresome plot development). Remember, she thinks Luke Skywalker and the Force are just a myth. Also, she seems to know what she's waiting for on Jakku -- she acts like somebody obsessed with her past, not somebody who doesn't remember having one.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That would make more sense.
And I would be annoyed if Rey was a padawan. It would mean that someone brainwashed her into thinking that the force doesn't exist
Also, when I was talking about how Rey is too superior to Kylo, I don't mean in the duel. I know he's trying to turn her and all, but I dislike how he never poses any threat to her ever. She can just use the force to overpower every plot obstacle and then has a specific technique like the mind trick after it's been said her strength is JUST raw... and she has a much stronger will than him too.
Don't get me wrong I quite like Kylo as a character but as a foil for Rey he exacerbates problems she already has as a character.
Yeah, I thought I had heard something regarding that, but upon investigation it was actually differentiating the way the film was initially cut versus the theater cut, so I'll concede this.
I mean, you said you studied film, used that to claim a level of expertise, used that claim of expertise to place yourself above others as an authority, and then made an appeal to your own authority to justify statements you'd previously made that were wrong - by your own admission.
So...
Yours isn't?
Are you implying that Lucas doesn't have anything that makes him unique?
Hell, he might not always, especially these days, always be unique in a way that is positive, but he's certainly unique.
I don't see the problem here.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Every single event in your life is just as coincidental as Rey meeting Finn. What is the coincidence of two people meeting each other ? Seriously ?
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Poe have clearly set the TIE trajectory to that region of the planet before the TIE was taken down as he knew BB-8 was there. The ship would fall but he still managed to make it fall nearby his objective.
The region itself is very empty and that outpost is a focal point. Anyone searching for anything in that area should go there first - and that was the case for Finn and BB-8, reason why they met.
No coincidence at all.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras