Thread: The 3D-quality
View Single Post
Old May 12 2013, 04:39 PM   #73
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The 3D-quality

MacLeod wrote: View Post
If it's about respecting the original intent of the film makers to give an example, if Lucas said the re-mastered original SW trilogy was his original intent but the technology of the 70's/80's prevented him from achieving it why was there such an outcry about it?
On the original intent question, I'll address that first.
Because he didn't wait till the 90s to make it. You create with what is at hand or what is now possible, or you wait until the tools are available.

Everything I've read indicates the delay in making the prequels relates to him waiting for the tech tools to be available to do them as he wished. And still he kept going back messing with them (how does Yoda look this week?)

After CE3K came out, Spielberg regretted not including Dreyfuss' big bathroom meltdown. So it went into the revised cut in 1980. And then? It came back out again after we'd gotten to see it that way.

On your comment about the outcry against his tampering:
I am of the opinion that part of what makes the original SW work so well for so many (and note that I am no huge fan, though I think that there are three or four reels that are truly excellent, as is a big hunk of EMPIRE) is that it doesn't reflect GL's intentions so perfectly, and that if he'd had Kubrick-level resources the result would have been far less entertaining ... mainly because I think his vision was flawed, and it was only through the collaboration of others that the whole thing came to fruition in the way it did. The product that succeeded so well wasn't as he intended, but it was what got brought forth, and to great acclaim, so everybody is 'why piss on the wedding cake?'

One aspect that deviated massively from his intent that he has never been able to do ANYTHING about is the film's cinematography, which in no way represented his confusing statement of intent that it should be documentary like, but with a fairytale diffusion. Call up a screen grab of LUCKY LADY and another from THE WORLD AT WAR; you're going to see apples and oranges, with STAR WARS looking like an artichoke by comparison ... and that is due to Gil Taylor, who fought with and disregarded instruction from Lucas and Gary Kurtz throughout, and was Fox's guy. If they'd actually gotten to keep their original choice for DP, they'd've had their LUCKY LADY look, and I swear, it would have went over about as well as ... well, LUCKY LADY did. As in NOT AT ALL.

I think that first film was absolutely the result of expert editing, a picture that evolved more thoroughly in post than he'd intended. All of that may have rankled him, but it also created a situation that let him do the rest of the pics largely as he wished. You'd figure he'd be happy with that.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote