RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,145
Posts: 5,401,994
Members: 24,748
Currently online: 502
Newest member: ChrisCrash

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 14 2013, 10:31 PM   #46
Kinokima
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

Belz... wrote: View Post
It wasn't really that much different before. I've seen movies from the 30s and 40s with similar sensibilities.
It was very different, films targeted to adults not teenagers was the rule not the exception. Of course all films back then were "family friendly" because of the production code (well post 1934 that is).

I am not saying every film back then was good or every film now is bad but there is definitely a difference in how film is marketed & what audience the marketers are trying to reach. I don't think it is a positive thing overall. Of course TV changed things too.

But anyways I definitely feel there is way too much praise for Lucas. Star Wars was great but what he did for film overall, meh!
Kinokima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 10:37 PM   #47
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

DalekJim wrote: View Post
CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Still not applicable.
What? Why?

The majority of movies don't even use special effects. The majority of movies do use the editing grammar laid down by the likes of Eisenstein and Griffith. The Birth of a Nation changed cinema on a technical level much more than Star Wars did. Without it, cinema might look completely different. Instead of just uh... cheaper?


You still miss the point completely.

Also, no where in this thread did I mention Star Wars specifically. Nor was I making a point to point comparison.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 10:50 PM   #48
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

Well, I assumed you meant Star Wars as it is easily Lucas's most influential movie? Were you talking about American Graffiti?
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 11:36 PM   #49
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

I was never talking about any movie specifically. Where did I say or even imply that?
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 11:47 PM   #50
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

DalekJim wrote: View Post
The majority of movies don't even use special effects.
Actually most of them do use special and/or visual effects to some extent. First off, technically the term "special effects" is used in the industry to refer to live stage effects. Any movie with gunshots, fake blood, breakaway windows or tables, rain and lightning, building or vehicle fires, or the like employs special effects. Special visual effects, formerly optical and now digital, are also used invisibly in many movies. Historical films have often used matte paintings or miniatures to depict locations, and sometimes even films in modern-day settings have done so when no suitable real-life location was available or practical to shoot in (for instance, the matte paintings used in Vertigo to depict the bell tower that didn't exist in real life). In the past, and to some extent in the present, any shot showing a character onscreen watching a movie or TV screen is a composite shot with the screen image superimposed in. Optical/digital effects can also be used to create artsy shots of characters being reflected in mirrored surfaces (e.g. Neo in Morpheus's glasses in The Matrix -- that film had plenty of obvious FX, but many viewers would overlook that one). Digital wire/support removal is routinely used for stunts that would've been performed more dangerously in the past. And in this day and age, digital effects are routinely used to tweak actors' appearances in subtle ways, removing blemishes or unwanted eyeblinks, or even altering their mouth movements to fit a redubbed line. There are all sorts of ways that movies use special or visual effects without the audience ever noticing.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but technically even onscreen titles or dissolves between shots are visual effects, since they entail using photographic or digital techniques to alter, add to, or combine images.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2013, 11:57 PM   #51
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

If we were to list every piece of visual trickery as a "special" effect then we'd have a ridiculously large criteria as cinema is visual trickery. It's a picture that looks like it's moving.

A composite shot with a screen image, or a composited sign above a shop or bar, doesn't really count as a special effect these days. No more than editing does. Cutting from one scene to another is a visual effect. It is hardly a "special" effect in 2013.

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
I was never talking about any movie specifically. Where did I say or even imply that?
Well, when you say Lucas has changed cinema more than any other, then I assume you mean because of Star Wars as that is the only movie of his people care about? Not me mind, I love American Graffiti and THX.

I just.. don't buy he's made as much of an impact as the men I listed. I'm a film historian. If I look at a film from 1915, and a film from 1976, the year before Star Wars, then they'll be hugely different. An average drama film from 1976... compared to one that came out in 2013? Nothing of note will have changed.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2013, 12:13 AM   #52
I am not Spock
Commodore
 
Location: Australia
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

Star Wars vs Star Trek is similar to The Rolling Stones vs the Beatles. Or to use another genre example, Superman vs Batman.

Star Wars/The Beatles/Batman are more 'cool', and popular.

Star Trek/The Rolling Stones/Superman as great as they are, will never be as popular as their closest rivals.

I personally prefer Star Trek. But I like Wars as well.
__________________
It's a FAAAAKKKEEE!
Senator Vreenak- In the Pale Moonlight
I am not Spock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2013, 12:18 AM   #53
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

DalekJim wrote: View Post
If we were to list every piece of visual trickery as a "special" effect then we'd have a ridiculously large criteria as cinema is visual trickery. It's a picture that looks like it's moving.

A composite shot with a screen image, or a composited sign above a shop or bar, doesn't really count as a special effect these days. No more than editing does. Cutting from one scene to another is a visual effect. It is hardly a "special" effect in 2013.
In vernacular usage, maybe, but that's frankly rather insulting to the talented visual artists who put a lot of effort into creating effects that, if they do their jobs well, we'll never even realize they did at all.

Whether it's literally "special" or routine is completely beside the point and completely disingenuous. Formally, as I explained, they aren't even called special effects; those are live stage effects. What we're discussing are correctly called visual effects. And what's under discussion is whether the majority of movies use those techniques at all -- which, in fact, most of them do.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2013, 12:59 AM   #54
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Well, when you say Lucas has changed cinema more than any other, then I assume you mean because of Star Wars as that is the only movie of his people care about? Not me mind, I love American Graffiti and THX.
I still fail to see how you equate any of that with this:

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
He has had his hand in so many different cookie jars over the years, it is impossible to know just how far and wide his reach goes. The fact of the matter is, remove him from the equation and the current face of the industry is a lot different than it is. There isn't anyone else--save for maybe a studio person, which is impossible to know--that you can say that about.
This:
CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Lucas's impact goes well beyond that of any job title, not "director," "producer," or even "special effects maven." It's simply a matter of his total influence on the medium, as an art form and a business, as an individual.
And, well, this:
CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
George Lucas did more for the advancement of motion pictures than anyone since Lumiere brothers.
But I'll make it even simpler: Lucas never did one big thing to change the industry. He has, however, made lots and lots and lots of smaller contributions over the last 40 years. If you smash them all up into a giant blob of celluloid, it's influential mass exceeds anything anyone else has done.

He's dabbled in EVERYTHING. Hell, his monetary promotion and execution of ideas and technologies alone is really significant.

All those little side projects that have lead to 'digital age' probably wouldn't exists today in the same form (if at all) if it weren't for him. This includes everything from camera types to sound recording to effects shooting.

There's other various minutia: things like the way studios interact and putting the freaking length (completeness) of the end-credit crawl.

And to top it all off, yes, Star Wars is probably the most momentous film of the modern era. Titanic can make a case for itself.

In any case, you've got me quoting myself in length which means it's time to hang it up.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2013, 01:07 AM   #55
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

Christopher wrote: View Post
That's a very insular viewpoint. It's one of the most influential movies on American cinema in the past 40 years, certainly, but there's more to the world than our narrow slice of it.
Granted, and you'll notice I didn't specify which country: I said "movie". It's had a huge impact worldwide as well.



Kinokima wrote: View Post
It was very different, films targeted to adults not teenagers was the rule not the exception.
Movies and theatre have been selling tickets on action, sex and violence for thousands of years. This isn't new at all. And yes, younger people tend to go for that more than older ones.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2013, 01:30 AM   #56
Locutus of Bored
A Certain Point of View
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: The Force
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
Whether you like it or not, Lucas was the driving force behind all that. And he has had his hand in so many different cookie jars over the years, it is impossible to know just how far and wide his reach goes. The fact of the matter is, remove him from the equation and the current face of the industry is a lot different than it is. There isn't anyone else--save for maybe a studio person, which is impossible to know--that you can say that about.
Yep. Say what you will about the man, but he has been HUGELY influential and innovative in the film industry --both onscreen and behind the scenes with VFX and sound, in gaming, in other technological fields, and by launching the careers of, assisting, or working with countless big names in the movie industry today.

(click to enlarge)


http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may.../fi-starwars24

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movie...wars-prequels/

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Georg...ations_in_film

Christopher wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
Star Wars is possibly the most influential movie ever made, so yeah, kinda.
That's a very insular viewpoint. It's one of the most influential movies on American cinema in the past 40 years, certainly, but there's more to the world than our narrow slice of it.
I think he's referring to it influencing movies around the world. Agree or disagree with the assertion, but that doesn't make the viewpoint itself insular.

Also, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Belz is American. Which, if true, would make the insular comment rather ironic.

DalekJim wrote: View Post
The majority of movies don't even use special effects.
I believe the majority of films released in theaters do use some sort of VFX these days to enhance the film itself (not talking about title screens or wipes or any of that stuff). Even many low-budget films these days digitally remove wires and use digital mattes and so forth.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2013, 01:36 AM   #57
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
He's dabbled in EVERYTHING. Hell, his monetary promotion and execution of ideas and technologies alone is really significant.
I think it's unfair to give George Lucas credit for inventions and innovations in visual/digital effects done by so many other different people or companies he'd invested in. That isn't a trail of one man's vision, it's just a trail of money.

He was lucky to work with some amazing special effects during Star Wars which led to him gaining a huge amount of money. He then put this money in to special effects companies as his own movie's success showed him that was the future.

I don't view that as a hugely impressive accomplishment. If we look at stuff George Lucas has done when he's actually forced to contribute and add ideas to the table, we're stuck with a man who has directed a mere 3 movies since 1977. None of which are good.

In said last 3 movies, Lucas shows no skill at visual style at all. Scenes are directed as flatly as possible, with conversations largely in shot-reverse-shot. The tech whizzes he has working for him then clutter the frame with as much pointless shit as possible, while George kinda nods or tuts. The prequels are barely directed. I think Abrams is a hack director, but he's obviously highly competent. Lucas hasn't even shown that since 1977.

Last edited by DalekJim; July 15 2013 at 01:51 AM.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2013, 01:58 AM   #58
Kinokima
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

Belz... wrote: View Post
Movies and theatre have been selling tickets on action, sex and violence for thousands of years. This isn't new at all. And yes, younger people tend to go for that more than older ones.
I wasn't talking about sex, action and violence just who movies were marketed too and it was most definitely not teenagers.

In the 30's and 40's adult women were considered one of the most lucrative markets for film. Do you think that is still considered true today?

All you have to do is look at the biggest films and stars of that time and you can see it was very different. I am not sure what movies you watched from the period but things have definitely changed significantly. Whether that change is better or worse is up to personal opinion.

edit: Although this is getting off topic because I don't actually blame Lucas for all this.

Last edited by Kinokima; July 15 2013 at 02:20 AM.
Kinokima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2013, 02:18 AM   #59
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

DalekJim wrote: View Post
CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
He's dabbled in EVERYTHING. Hell, his monetary promotion and execution of ideas and technologies alone is really significant.
I think it's unfair to give George Lucas credit for inventions and innovations in visual/digital effects done by so many other different people or companies he'd invested in. .
Moreover, there's a serious amount of serendipity involved in SW hitting the way it did when it did, in large part due to things going almost opposite from GL's intent.

For example: he wanted the film to look extremely diffused, even hiring Geoff Unsworth fresh from LUCKY LADY (the movie makes Susannah York's and Margot Kidder's closeups in SUPERMAN 2 look SHARP by comparison), but the studio told the cinematographer to ignore him and shoot it more conventionally. They were at war throughout shooting, and Lucas was extremely dissatisfied with the results, but if things had gone his way, it'd've had a look that not only was bad aesthetically, but would never have been able to cut properly with the visual effects.

He was extremely unhappy with ILM (think Wise reacting to Abel on TMP for a similar viewpoint, though in GL's case with a lot more chest pains and vitriol.) He had wanted more lengthy shots some of the time, which is problematic when you don't have 2001's budget and skillset and extended timeframe. GL had to live with what he got from ILM, and to his credit very skillfully cut around the effects with his editors as needed, in so doing creating a sense of excitement they simply wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

So without all of those errors and missteps (from GL's POV), I don't think you have a phenomena, and then you don't have the GL empire or merchandising or all the rest. So you have to look at it in a bigger view in terms of the digital wave he brought on (which to me has not been great cinematically, and has created its own boondoggle with digitally acquired & stored product decaying and having huge preservation issues.)

In a more perfect world, Douglas Trumbull would have been the guy who had the biggest influence on filmmaking in the latter half of the 20th century technologically speaking.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2013, 02:40 AM   #60
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Where my heart is.
Re: George Lucas: Star Wars stood on the shoulders of Star Trek

DalekJim wrote: View Post
I think it's unfair to give George Lucas credit for inventions and innovations in visual/digital effects done by so many other different people or companies he'd invested in. That isn't a trail of one man's vision, it's just a trail of money.
Except most of it was HIS money. What wasn't, he was the one with the wherewithal to lobby and arrange for its use.

He was lucky to work with some amazing special effects during Star Wars which led to him gaining a huge amount of money. He then put this money in to special effects companies as his own movie's success showed him that was the future.
What a ridiculous thing to say.

You could also say that Bill Gates was lucky enough to have a friend who knew a guy who was willing to sell an OS for cheap.

Or that Steve Jobs was lucky enough to have a friend who liked to tinker with stuff.

While Allen and Woz were clearly the "geniuses" behind the core work, it was Gates and Jobs who promoted and pushed the technology. And use the money they earned to further the process. Such that, anyone who might suggest Gates and Jobs weren't the two most important people in the history of personal computing would just come off looking like a bumpkin.

Both computers and film are ultimately businesses. The money isn't the important part. It's the people who take chances and have the vision to spend the money in the right places at the right times.

And even, for the sake of argument, what if it all does come down to luck? That doesn't change the fact that it was him and not someone else involved in all that shit in LoB pic.

George Lucas has done when he's actually forced to contribute and add ideas to the table
How do you know?

None of which are good.
A matter of opinion non relevant to the point.

In said last 3 movies, Lucas shows no skill at visual style at all. Scenes are directed as flatly as possible, with conversations largely in shot-reverse-shot. The tech whizzes he has working for him then clutter the frame with as much pointless shit as possible, while George kinda nods or tuts. The prequels are barely directed. I think Abrams is a hack director, but he's obviously highly competent. Lucas hasn't even shown that since 1977.
Another opinion also not relevant--or grounded in reality for that matter.

The prequels may have had epic script and plot woes, and Lucas probably couldn't direct an actor out of a room full of lollipops, but the camerawork is as good as anything filmed in the last 25 years.

A lot of it is by the numbers. But a lot of it isn't. To say it was "barely directed" only shows your bias and lack of originality.

Also, there's nothing wrong with keeping it simple. The vast majority of all conversational frames in film are shot-reverse-shots. So the fuck what? Flair doesn't always beget quality.

What you call pointless clutter, I call the prequels' one redeeming quality. Because all that stuff isn't "pointless." It's world building on a scale that had never been seen in film before. The subtle use of moving depth of field he used in some cityscapes was sometimes breathtaking.

Also, a lot of what was goes on in the background in many key scenes have HUGE thematic implications. The one thing Lucas has always been really good at (going back to THX) is thematic visual cues. He loves them, and the prequels are loaded with them.

Most importantly, some shots just look down right awesome, and there are a handful that I wouldn't mind blowing up and hanging on my mantle (provided I had a mantle).
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.