slashdot.org posted an article on Sunday about a guy named Kerry Conran who decided to start making a sci-fi special effects action movie on his Macintosh IIci. Several years later and after being discovered by a well know producer the movie is about to come out this summer.

This Conran guy basically made the entire preview (6 minutes) in his room with his mac. What makes this special is how it finally got made, the first large scale indie scifi epic since Star Wars. (at least of this magnatude and with name stars like Jude Law and Angelina Jolie).

digital uber alles:

The full article is at the New York times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/magazine/14CONRAN.html

wanted to make something else clear. The producer created an effects studio from scratch to finish the movie. The Mac IIci was used for the pilot.

What a tremendous nerd fantasy!

I mean this in the most positive way.

I love this guy's story. There are other similar stories out there but this one is one of the best. Perseverence, luck, vision all combine for a home run.

Of course, the movie could still suck but then, he's had his shot.

"...all combine for a home run."

Well, there's still the small matters of box office and critical reception before we start awarding any pennants, but from the looks of the trailers, this may be something interesting.

On the other hand, it may be another STAR WARS prequel: all previz and no spirit.

Joe, here is one of the other "one guy and his Mac" stories that I came across earlier. The difference between this guy's story and the one I'm posting below is that the one guy below made a 25 minute anime by himself, not a six minute teaser that later got studio recognition. I think the production was seven months with an iMac.

It's called "Hoshi No Koe" or "Voices of the Distant Star". It was produced entirely by one fellow (aside from voice acting, and music of course) and is really a very good anime one-off (OAV) with a beautiful sad story.

http://itadakimas.bobby-digital.net/Screenshots/Hoshi%20No%20Koe/Hoshi%20No%20Koe.htm

The story:
http://www.animefringe.com/magazine/02.12/feature/3/index.php3

That's pretty cool. Here's the link to view the trailer of "Sky Captain".

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/skycaptainandtheworldoftomorrow/

And here's a link to view the trailer for "Hoshi No Koe" aka "Voices of a Distant Star".

http://www.advfilms.com/favorites/voices/trailer/trailer.shtml

Just in case this thread piqued anybody else's interest I thought I'd make it easy to see what these guys are talking about.

Incredible story! Looks pretty neat too. Should be an interesting watch.
Thanks for pointing it out!

a bump since the movie itself is opening 9/17!

anyone going to see it? i AM!!! besides clothing/actor everything else (even props) is CG. i love the concept! plus the sountrack is out today, haven't had time to check it out, anyone?

I've got a free pass to see it on tuesday. Can't wait! I've been jonesing to see this movie for months now.

Sky Captain, I believe, started production over 2 years ago and wrapped in three months. It's almost like Star Wars, with 2 years from shooting to editing to effects to premiere...

And check this little story out. (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31521)

heath

remember to come back and post a review of what you think.

I read the book adaptation (a guilty pleasure of mine), and that was cool, in a guilty pleasure-kinda way.

heath

it's THIS FRIDAY!!!! =). i hope it's one of those, "I TOLD YOU IT WAS GONNA ROCK" movies. i did that for fight club the movie cause the trailer was awesome. i had no clue what fight club was until i saw the trailer in front of phantom menace and i thought it was one of the best movie trailers to have come out in a long time cause it didn't give away any of the plot but gave you just enough intrigue and interest to watch it. so i told all my pals that it's gonna be one of the best movies ever 6 months prior to its release. i don't think i've done that before fight club or since but it was truly awesome when my pals come back up to me and ask, "how'd you know?". i just said, the trailer said it all to me. i haven't done it for sky captains but i think it's got lots of promises... we shall see this friday!

Check out this cool event, courtesy of Ain't It Cool News (http://aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18358).

heath

well i have my feelings about aicn but the event was very cool nonetheless. rodriguez+conran together!!! wow that's insane!!!

just saw it... it was OK, but not as 'classic' as i thought it was gonna be. the autombobiles were a bit fake, other than that the rest were all "CG" glory. there were many nifty parts of it but overall simply OK.

I saw it having forgotten entirely about the Kerry Conran story (which I read with some interest months ago). The distinctive visual style drew me to see the film. And boy was I excited.

The movie is beautiful. But approaching it as a movie--not as an amazing technical achievement--I felt disappointed. Although I found the lighting and composition striking (and powerfully evocative of late-30's film noir, not to mention Buck Rogers), things didn't move right, particularly flying things and swimming things. Sure, physical modeling is hard. But at one time or another, mass, volume, velocity, or viscosity all seem to have been outright discarded; and when that happens, this world that Conron's crew had so cleverly manufactured from whole cloth suddenly looks quite thin.

That's my single biggest complaint of CGI in films in general: things don't move right.

That's not the end of the world; I'm not a slave to realism. But I want emotional truth, even if it's just to set up a goofy joke. Miyazaki's Spirited Away is plainly an animated cartoon, and sure has a distinctive visual style. But I found Spirited Away emotionally compelling. In Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Conron's meticulously-created visual world was beautiful and sexy, but the thin characterizations (gamely enacted by talented actors) left me with nothing else.

I came out of the movie disappointed, but it's still a heck of a job. Marrying complex CGI worlds with live actors flailing around in front of a green screen is hard; I wouldn't mind having something like it on my resume.

Michael

but michael,

neither flash gordon nor buck rogers were "emotionally moving" as you had with miyazaki films. i think kerry was going more towards those types of films (entertainment for entertainment's sake).

Regarding Buck Rogers:

Yeah, but you can't just re-make a Buck Rogers movie.

So, for example, Star Wars and the Indiana Jones movies remade other genre films but they infused them with modern sensibilities. And while Star Wars in particular had some awfully stilted lines, Lucas brought something to the process that transcended his creaky script. Maybe it was several tons of innovative filmmaking technology. But using Alec Guiness didn't hurt. Who knows?

Sky Captain, while visually brilliant, doesn't have enough of that "extra." So while I was blathering on about it needing more emotional reality--and I think it does--I was really complaining that, well, the movie wasn't great. It was OK, but not great. Even as entertainment.

Wait a minute. I think I'm emphatically agreeing with you.

Michael

btw michael,

i just saw a production of taming of the shrow (shrew =) with my friend as tranio. twas a good play!

now, even indy+star wars (ep4) was not supposed to be overly emotional no matter how much modern fusing was done. empire was kinda (a little bit) emotional cause combo of larry kasdan, irvin kershner but lucas always weened it down.

prob with sky captain was that the character interaction scenes were very very few. if kerry really wanted to go for the 40s feel then more than 3/4 should have been talking... instead we're treated to 1/20 talking and 19/20 all visual fx. that was the prob. even if you looked back at the cheesiest of cheese flicks there were always some great quotable dialogue. i can't recall any big quotable dialogue except for jolie's, "leave that to me, alert the ambiphous squandron!".

emotional cause combo of larry kasdan, irvin kershner but lucas always weened it down.

That's not really true.

but you don't offer a reason why that isn't.

Everyone seemed subdued in Sky Captain, but then again, the sound in my theatre was low, and I was too into the movie to get up and go tell someone to crank it up. I'd give it 3 stars out of 4.

heath

the sound mix for the movie is too low. the cinema that i usually goto doesn't have volume control. i have asked the cinema manager on 2 separate occasions whether or not there is, they told me there ain't for the specific auditorium that i goto. so that's the one i always goto cause fellowship, two towers were awfully loud in there and so were matrix, etc. so i guess the mix is a bit low, i dunno why, no more budget?

I understand Ebert gave this movie four stars, is that correct? I really believe the guy is getting soft these days. That movie was good but not four star good. As mentioned already, I too felt very little for the characters, they were enjoyable enough but the emotional connection wasn't there for me.

Ebert has explained his starring system previously. It's really a floating standard, not an absolute standard. I don't think he really thinks that the four stars that "Sky Captain" got means the same thing as the four stars "Baraka" got.

Good, because he gives Monkey Trouble more stars than Forrest Gump.

but you don't offer a reason why that isn't.

It's not true because Lucas wrote the majority of Empire, he saw all the dailies, and he edited. There was never a Kershner cut, as soon as principal photography was done, Kershner was done and Lucas took over as director in the editing room and for the rest of post production. There was a lot of footage for Empire - both the way it was written and the more emotional improv that Kershner directed. If Lucas didn't want the film to be emotional, it wouldn't have been. It is the way it is because Lucas decided it would be. He had a lot of help, particularly with a director who was better with actors than he was and a co-writer who was better with dialogue and could spot certain emotional and plot holes in the script, but Lucas had total control and could have changed anything if he had wanted to, even in the editing room. It is what it is because Lucas choose for it to be, not inspite of him.

"It is what it is because Lucas choose for it to be, not inspite of him."

This is a perspective that neglects the role of Gary Kurtz as producer of the film, and of Paul Hirsch and Marcia Lucas as editors.

Among scholars who have chronicled (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=221492#post221492) the making of STAR WARS, it should be conceded that calling The Empire Strikes Back "a George Lucas film" is something of a minority perspective.

If Lucas really felt he had final say on the film, why did he not invite Kurtz to return? (Why Marcia Lucas did not return is another matter altogether!)

as far as writings is concerned lucas wrote story outline (minus emotional stuff) for both empire+jedi as well as backstory for ep1-3. if what you said is true then ep1+2 and the upcoming would've been very emotional and very CLASSIC. i mean anakin leaving his mother? that should have brought the house down. look at the documentary on the new SW trilogy DVDs, it explains that leigh bracket wrote it but died in '78. she wrote big goodbye, rio bravo, rio lobo, the long goodbye, etc. she was an excellent screenwriter. it also helps that larry kasdan is also a great writer (the big chill) and they both contributed heavily to the emotional tones of empire. irvin took that script and brought it to life. it was lucas he just simply would have said, less character development and "faster more intense!". he edited cause the footage was shot and imho empire probably surprised him the most as the most emotional of al the stories that's why he probably toned it down into a comic-jes in jedi.

This is a perspective that neglects the role of Gary Kurtz as producer of the film, and of Paul Hirsch and Marcia Lucas as editors.

It doesn't neglect either. But. Most of Kurtz work (by his own admission) on Empire was during the preproduction and production phrases, not so much after production because of schedule and budget conflicts with Lucas. Lucas, coming from an editing background, has always been known as a very, very hands on director in the editing room. It was the work of the three of them that created the final edit, but Lucas was the one who decided what the final cut was.

I never said Empire was a George Lucas film. But it is not, in its entirety an Irvin Kershner film either. I have read the literature on the creation of the Star Wars films. A lot of it. Kershner's main contribution to Empire was the performances of the actors.

If Lucas really felt he had final say on the film, why did he not invite Kurtz to return?

They had some disagreements with how Kurtz went about making the film (not the content) and how it went over budget. On top of that, Kurtz was less interested in Jedi as Lucas wanted to take it back to the lighter roots of Star Wars and away from the darker elements of Empire, and because Lucas was ending the series there, instead of continuing on to 9, as Kurtz wanted to do. So they came to a mutual agreement to go their seperate ways.

as far as writings is concerned lucas wrote story outline (minus emotional stuff) for both empire+jedi as well as backstory for ep1-3. if what you said is true then ep1+2 and the upcoming would've been very emotional and very CLASSIC.

Lucas has said in interviews that a lot of the story for Empire came to him in a moment of inspiration (versus the struggle to come up with Star Wars). That doesn't happen very often. And, a lot of the emotion of Empire comes form Kershner's direction on set. Lucas isn't quite as good at directing actors.

it explains that leigh bracket wrote it but died in '78. she wrote big goodbye, rio bravo, rio lobo, the long goodbye, etc. she was an excellent screenwriter. it also helps that larry kasdan is also a great writer (the big chill) and they both contributed heavily to the emotional tones of empire

Leigh Brackett's draft has absolutely *nothing* to do with Empire. The tone and emotion in it was completely wrong. Not a single thing from it was kept, and George had to start over from scratch. If she had lived, that probably wouldn't have been true. But she didn't, and Lucas gave her a credit out of sympathy. The actual writing credits for Empire should read the same as they do for Jedi (and if Lucas had been a part of the WGA, they would). Kasdan did bring a lot of emotion to the story, particularly in the dialogue he added, but a lot of it was already there - particularly in the Luke/Vader relationship and a lot of the Cloud City stuff. Kasdan's real strength was in making it more subtle.

he edited cause the footage was shot and imho empire probably surprised him the most as the most emotional of al the stories that's why he probably toned it down into a comic-jes in jedi.

You're not giving Lucas the credit he deserves for knowing how to make a good movie. At the same time, Lucas has always had an idea for what Star Wars should be (lighter, less dark and morose) that many of his co-workers (like Kurtz and Kershner) could never really get behind - a style he insisted on going back to after Empire, instead of just getting darker (though a lot of that had to do with ending the film at Jedi as well).

you seen empire of dreams on the new SW trilogy?

also, coming off of your logic, ep1&2 should have been written as sweeping emotional classics. =^). you see the problem?

empire+jedi is definitely a collaborative effort. while empire+jedi was outlined greatly by lucas why hire kasdan as the writer? at that point (as it was in the empire of dreams documentary) lucas had become indepedent of the system out of all guilds. he could care less about hiring someone so he could tack on that person's name in the credits.

Yes, I've seen Empire of Dreams. But. Not everything that went on during the creation of the films is in there. An exhaustive look that covered everything would be as long as Ken Burns' Baseball.

also, coming off of your logic, ep1&2 should have been written as sweeping emotional classics. =^). you see the problem?

No. You're trying to apply logic to the creative process of writing and filmmaking, and it's not a 100% fit. The same Francis Ford Coppolla that made The Godfather made Jack. Just because a person does some good work, doesn't mean that everything they do is going to be good. Conversely, just because a person does some bad writing, doesn't mean that they've never done good writing either. Lucas has had his share of bonehead ideas, but he's had his share of good ones as well. Kasdan's written his share of crappy screenplay's, but he's still a good writer.

My point is, give Lucas the credit he deserves for the work he has done. Saying that Empire is what it is in spite of Lucas is a disservice to his abilities as a filmmaker and doesn't hold up in view of the facts of the creation of the films.

empire+jedi is definitely a collaborative effort. while empire+jedi was outlined greatly by lucas why hire kasdan as the writer?

He had started out planning to just outline it, and have Leigh Brackett write it, but when she died that threw a monkey wrench in his plans. In the end, he had to write several drafts as he hunted around for a writer to finish it. By the time Kasdan came on board, there were already two Lucas drafts in existence. Kasdan worked on it from top to bottom and added a lot to it, but a lot was already there. It wasn't a page one re-write. I've read the 2nd Lucas draft and I've read the 2nd Kasdan draft. Mostly, Kasdan worked on the dialogue and bringing out the emotion Lucas wanted that was hidden behind Lucas' more stilted dialogue.

He didn't hire Kasdan to tack his name onto the credits, he hired Kasdan to finish the screenplay because he was more interested in the preproduction process and getting the financing worked out than sitting in a room and writing. And he gave Leigh Brackett a credit because he liked her and he wanted to, and felt like her untimely death robbed her of the chance to contribute more to the film than she did.

What you describe, Lucas doing an outline than hiring someone else to write the screenplay is what happened on Jedi (though Lucas still did the first draft of that, and it wasn't very good). But it didn't happen on Empire.

My point about Empire being what it is is that Lucas was in control of it. The only thing he didn't personally oversee was principal photography. He felt like Kurtz and Kershner were making it too dark, he could have made it lighter, he had the footage to do so. After Empire, he made a concious decision to change the tone closer to the original Star Wars, and he's done that even more on the prequels. Some fans don't like that decision, that's just the way it goes. But he doesn't do it to spit in the eyes of fans or out of some hatred over what Kershner and Kurtz did. Lucas had more to do with Empire becoming what it became than Kurtz or Kasdan did.

For some reason I don't understand, because fans dislike the special editions and/or dislike the prequels, there is a desire to pass that dislike onto Lucas personally and minimize his influence on the original films.

I've read Empire Building and a lot of his conclusions are wrong - they do not gel at all with the documents and first hand accounts of the people who were there during the making of any of his films. Jenkins asserts that Lucas has made good movies by standing on the shoulders of people more talented than he and stealing credit for their work - and that's completely untrue. I can almost understand how people who feel let down or betrayed by the prequels (though how you can feel betrayed by a movie is beyond me) can resonate with that assertion, but it doesn't make it true.

boy... we're really diving off of the sky captain thread eh? =).

how can the same lucas who did ep4-6 be the same that did ep1-3? no one really knows you're quite right but on the other hand, ALL of fincher's films are awesome and showed david's dirty paws all over it no matter how much a studio butchers it. alien3 was awesome cause of fincher no matter how botched up it was. he's so talented that a crappy cut still showed that fincher style (the slow mo of object dropping).

i suppose you could say that lucas also came out with THX1138, American Graffiti, storyline for Indiana Jones Trilogy, Willow, HOward the Duck, etc. i suppose you could but with the exception of Raiders&Last Crusade& young indiana jones series, all of those productions were very iffy. even radioland murders. not as classic as Star Wars.

now, i think you are right not many people are giving Lucas enough credit for his hand in the creation of empire+jedi but i think you also give him TOO much credit. remember, although he has utilized much of the same crew from ep4-6 on ep1-3, the central creative figure of the star wars storylines have shifted and changed from lucas working with other artists in coming to fruition of ep4-6 to lucas being the SOLE AUTHOR writer-director or ep1-3. ep1-3 is where lucas sheds his skin and we see him for all he really is (good or bad). so to say that lucas should take major credit for ep4-6 is not entirely correct.

ALL of fincher's films are awesome and showed david's dirty paws all over it no matter how much a studio butchers it. alien3 was awesome cause of fincher no matter how botched up it was. he's so talented that a crappy cut still showed that fincher style (the slow mo of object dropping).

That's just style, though. Lucas has kept his filmmaking style throughout his career - but sometimes his material isn't as good as other times. Fincher isn't far different. He has an interesting style, but it can't hide weak material either. Alien 3 was awful (I've read the final draft, and even restoring all the cut footage wouldn't have saved that) and The Game and Panic Room were just average potboilers. The only two movies Fincher did that were above average, Seven and Fight Club, had above average material.

i suppose you could say that lucas also came out with THX1138, American Graffiti, storyline for Indiana Jones Trilogy, Willow, HOward the Duck(actually, Lucas had nothing to do with Howard. He just put his name on it so that it could get made, because the makers were friends of his - Howard was solely the work of Katz/Huyk, who some people want to give the credit for American Graffiti and Ep.4)etc. i suppose you could but with the exception of Raiders&Last Crusade& young indiana jones series, all of those productions were very iffy. even radioland murders. not as classic as Star Wars.

Well, what do you expect? No one is going to keep making classic films every time - if they did we'd be up to our armpits in classic films. Artists have their good days and their bad days.

now, i think you are right not many people are giving Lucas enough credit for his hand in the creation of empire+jedi but i think you also give him TOO much credit. remember, although he has utilized much of the same crew from ep4-6 on ep1-3, the central creative figure of the star wars storylines have shifted and changed from lucas working with other artists in coming to fruition of ep4-6 to lucas being the SOLE AUTHOR writer-director or ep1-3. ep1-3 is where lucas sheds his skin and we see him for all he really is (good or bad). so to say that lucas should take major credit for ep4-6 is not entirely correct.

Compared to ep.4 where Lucas was the sole author writer-director? That doesn't make sense. Lucas didn't have any less control over ep.5-6 than he did on the PT (and the only thing on ep.4 that he didn't really have control on was the budget - Alan Ladd really let him have complete control of the film). Lucas still works with other artists. He worked with a co-writer on Ep.2. According to many interviews from the making of the PT, Lucas cooperates closely with his different artist and crewmembers, allowing a lot of free reign and bringing in ideas from everyone. Sometimes he's struck gold and sometimes he hasn't, but the differences between the OT and the PT isn't because there were other people who made them what they were and Lucas got rid of them. If the people who worked on the OT came back and worked on the PT, the final product would not be that much different. Some things (like the Gungans, the Ep.2 love story) would have probably been toned down, but they wouldn't have been completely different. Star Wars, from the beginning, has been the vision of Lucas and he's the one who decided what it was going to be, and he always has been. You may not like the work he is doing now - that's the way it goes (though it's interesting that 10 years ago, Lucas foresaw that many fans wouldn't like what he was going to do in the PT) - but that doesn't mean that he wasn't responsible for what you loved the first time.

I also think that it's interesting that fans didn't like Empire as much when it came out as they do now. Initial reaction was extremely close to initial reaction to Ep. 2.

by sole author i meant not consulting anyone. i believe lucas consulted with joseph campbell heavily in ep4. jonathan hales DID improve ep2, probably saved it from the crap it could have become. so all in all i suppose we must agree to disagree about whether or not lucas improved or destroyed SW. i still think ANH had tons of people reeling him in. empire+jedi were DEFINITELY not in the sole hands of lucas that much is clear. it's hard to use the word auteur on lucas when his big companies and machines behind him helped him so.

by sole author i meant not consulting anyone. i believe lucas consulted with joseph campbell heavily in ep4. jonathan hales DID improve ep2, probably saved it from the crap it could have become. so all in all i suppose we must agree to disagree about whether or not lucas improved or destroyed SW. i still think ANH had tons of people reeling him in. empire+jedi were DEFINITELY not in the sole hands of lucas that much is clear.

Well, if you want to believe that, I can't change your mind, but it's not true. I think your distate for the prequels has you looking for a rationalization of how a person who made a movie you liked could also make a movie you didn't like. If it makes you feel better to believe that other people must have been responsible for the good qualities of Star Wars, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. But the facts of the creation of Star Wars do not support that.

Lucas has never been the sole author of any of his films (even THX-1138, which the closest to a 100% Lucas film he has ever done had a lot of help from Walter Murch). Even on Ep. 1 he consulted friends like Steven Speilberg, Ron Howard and Frank Darabont on the story and script. Darabont's direct quote after reading the final draft was 'I wouldn't change a damn word.' Lucas has never made any of the Star Wars films in a vacuum (the first one was the closest - and he only consulted with Campbell on theme, not on character or tone or style or dialogue) not even the current ones, but he has always been the controlling vision and mind behind it and there is more Lucas in the Star Wars films than anyone else.

Let me put it this way. If you removed any of the other people you credit for the work on Star Wars - Kurtz, Kershner, Kasdan - Star Wars would still be more or less the same. In tone it would be closer to the prequels. It would be a bit drier and a bit less witty, but for the most part the same. The original Star Wars would be exactly the same. The story would be the same. The character arcs would be the same.

However. If you remove Lucas from Star Wars and you just have the work of these other people, what you get won't have any resemblence to Star Wars what so ever.

it's hard to use the word auteur on lucas when his big companies and machines behind him helped him so.

And I'm not sure where you get that from. I don't know what having big companies and machines has to do with being an auteur. Being an auteur means 'a filmmaker who has a personal style and keeps creative control over his or her works' which describes Lucas to a tee.

i actually liked the prequels but i still disagree on your analysis of taking credit. you were never there and i was never there. we can only guess from 'this side' of the creative facet. the fact is if you take away larry kasdan the dialogue would sound worse than ep4 and more like ep1-3. if you took away irvin you wouldn't have the characterization in empire.

i actually liked the prequels but i still disagree on your analysis of taking credit. you were never there and i was never there. we can only guess from 'this side' of the creative facet. the fact is if you take away larry kasdan the dialogue would sound worse than ep4 and more like ep1-3. if you took away irvin you wouldn't have the characterization in empire.

I agree. However, I think that changes in dialogue and characterization would not change the overall nature of the movie, just the nuance of it. But without Lucas you would have witty dialogue and more sharply observed characterization, but no story to hang it off of (for instance, see Kershner's work on Robocop 2). If you don't have a good story and good characters, the rest of it is not going to work. If you have a good story and good characters, you can get by without quite as much nuance (which is what the first Star Wars did).

Do you think that the only thing that makes Empire good is the nuance? Do you think that if the dialogue and acting had been more like the original Star Wars, it would have been terrible?

You're right, I wasn't there, but I've done a lot of research into it, and I think I can make an educated guess.

Joshua, I want to thank you for posting some very reasoned opinions here. I don't agree with all of what you're arguing, but I'm impressed and more than a bit thankful that you're arguing it in an informed and more or less balanced manner.

I think history will come to view the first STAR WARS trilogy as something sacred in science fiction/fantasy/action-adventure cinema, but will disregard the prequels as vain drivel, meaningless films that broke no new cinematic ground and endowed the artistic and cultural lexicon with no new vocabulary, the way the first trilogy (and particularly the first film) did. We're really starting to see that already: ask the average movie fan what their general opinion of STAR WARS is, and they're likely to say that they reserve a fond space for the OT but see little to recommend in the prequels.

One semester when I was at USC not too many years back--after The Phantom Menace had been released, but before Attack of the Clones--the critical studies department offered a class on the work of Lucas, CTCS 469, given in the spacious cinema theater. The readings included all the interviews Lucas had ever given, and we screened all of Lucas's films, including all his student films, a few of which are impossible to see except in screenings at USC. At the end of the class, Lucas himself gave a Q&A, and he brought along Darabont and Kasdan. For many of the students in the class, Lucas was an idol, a hero to be emulated. The worth of studying his path, many of us believed, resided in its applicability to our own careers as writers, directors, producers, and artistic creators in general. He had undoubtedly changed cinema in almost all of its facets--its art, its technical craft, its business.

I have my own ideas as to why the prequels have not resonated with fans and audiences in general. The expectations were high, yes. The year before it was released, I had a bet with a fellow student that Episode I would become the biggest box-office draw of all time, beating Titanic.

"No," said my colleague, "it will never happen. You don't understand. Titanic had old people who hadn't gone to the theaters in decades coming out of their houses to go see it."

"What of it?" I said. "A science fiction film, if it is well made, can also have such a draw, and STAR WARS has the sequel benefit of being a known entity to audiences. This film is marketing itself. If a science fiction movie cannot become the number one box office earner of all time, how did the first STAR WARS movie do it? If a STAR WARS film cannot beat Titanic, what can?"

Episode I was far from a flop, prompting Lucas to declare victory over his critics, as he denied the cries of the naysayers who claimed it didn't do the saga credit. But the film was not the triumph most fans were expecting, failing even to win the important Oscar it was nominated for (visual effects). (The first movie had been nominated for Best Picture!) At ShoWest in early 2002, Rick McCallum boldly boasted to the gathering of exhibitors that "All of you lucky enough to get [Attack of the Clones] are going to make a shitload of money"---even as he was foisting upon them a set of stringent exhibition rules that would limit their profits. Then, Episode II was the first STAR WARS film not to be the biggest grossing picture of the year.

It's hard to call these films failures when they have grossed hundreds of millions worldwide and served as the vehicle for hundreds of millions more in merchandise and fast food tie-ins. But as well, they seem not to be living up to the standards of the pioneering work done by their forebears.

"For many of the students in the class, Lucas was an idol, a hero to be emulated."
The top film school in the country and THAT'S who students idolize and wish to emulate? That sucks.

It's hard to call these films failures when they have grossed hundreds of millions worldwide and served as the vehicle for hundreds of millions more in merchandise and fast food tie-ins. But as well, they seem not to be living up to the standards of the pioneering work done by their forebears.

And I think that's a real problem. I know a lot has been made about no film being able to match the expectations that were heaped upon Phantom Menace and people replying that is no excuse for what they got.

There are arguments to be made on both sides.

However, I think that suggesting that a film is a failure because it isn't groundbreaking is a bit harsh. To be completely fair, none of the films after the first was groundbreaking, relying more on nuance to see them through (it's not an accident that the first Star Wars was the only Star Wars film to be nominated for best picture).

Not that Phantom Menace doesn't have its problems, but not being as good as the first Star Wars shouldn't be one of them. It's a fairly well constructed adventure film that is often stiff, and if it's going to be criticized it should be done on that level.

"The top film school in the country and THAT'S who students idolize and wish to emulate? That sucks."

As the most successful of the school's many alumni luminaries (http://www-cntv.usc.edu/friends_alumni/alumni-notable.php), Lucas is a big influence on campus. His legacy is to be found in every cranny; the main building of the School of Cinema-Television was a gift from Marcia and is known shorthand simply as "Lucas." Marcia is still heavily involved with helping student films get recognition ("First Look" screenings); George sits on the Board of Councilors. The same year the Lucas class was given, two recent production graduates shot to fame with their Shakespeare in Love spoof that was lensed on campus, George Lucas in Love. (It was screened for the class with the filmmakers there.)

The Critical Studies 469 class (formally, "Film and/or Television Style Analysis") picks a different subject to explore each semester; alternate semesters, it is Hitchcock, but I can also remember (in addition to Lucas) Scorsese, Spielberg and--the semester he passed away--Kubrick being featured. All of these filmmakers are of the caliber studied and idolized by the students at USC, but Lucas is the only one to have a diploma from there, hence his status as the school's beloved.

Lucas probably whittles away at this reputation with each prequel that is released; it is hard to say how the student body will feel about him in another decade, but my sense is that his legacy is secure with Graffiti, A New Hope, Empire, and Raiders, achievements that no number of lesser-respected films tacked on to his CV could tarnish. Very likely, USC will remember two distinct people, "Young Lucas" and "Old Lucas," to ease the lionization of the former and the dismissal of the latter. Remember what John Lennon said about Elvis Presley when he died?

Imagine if the top fine arts programs around the country taught a course on Thomas Kinkade and he was the painter who students found most inspiring. It would be a pretty sad situation no? I would like to think that folks like Kurosawa, Bunuel, Hitchcock, and Kubrick are the types of filmmakers who would elicit worship from the students. And if we're talking current directors I personally would consider folks like Cronenberg, Lynch, and Gilliam much more interesting. At least if we're talking about the art of cinema. If we're talking about how your film can have a tie in with Pizza Hut selling glasses.....well, then I guess Lucas would be your man. Obviously film is not separate from commerce but with Lucas I get the feeling that the toys come first and the film follows.

I like your Kinkaid analogy.

Lucas, of course, borrowed a lot from Kurosawa (and indeed a brand new print of The Hidden Fortress was struck for the Lucas class at USC); Hitchcock has influenced all suspense films. But the other directors you list as admirable are cinematic surrealists, and, though they are interesting from the perspective that they manage to put to screen a lot of very strange images, none of them are admired as great storytellers, which, I think, is the profound value of Lucas's approach.

And of course, you're right that USC is a very commercial film school, in contrast to NYU, which is where you go if you want to make art films.

http://premiere.com/article.asp?section_id=5&article_id=1793

back to topic, the above link is how parts of sky capt is put together. very cool to see if you can d/l the pictures and do the compositing in photoshop.

And if we're talking current directors I personally would consider folks like Cronenberg, Lynch, and Gilliam much more interesting. At least if we're talking about the art of cinema. If we're talking about how your film can have a tie in with Pizza Hut selling glasses.....well, then I guess Lucas would be your man. Obviously film is not separate from commerce but with Lucas I get the feeling that the toys come first and the film follows.

If that's what you believe, more power to you, it's very much not true, but a lot of people who didn't like the prequels can't help but believe it.

I think you'll be strongly surprised by Lucas' post Star Wars films, as he moves back towards his THX roots.

So he says he intends, but do you believe Lucas is any longer capable of making a film free of the digital backlot?

http://www.lucasfilm.com/films/other/

^you don't have look for lucas's "other films". some of them are already out on DVD.

So he says he intends, but do you believe Lucas is any longer capable of making a film free of the digital backlot?

He's capable of it, but he certainly doesn't seem to want to. But I don't think that matters.

I think he's certainly capable of making an interesting, thought-provoking film whether the he shoots on location or on blue-screen.

Do you think THX would be that different if it were shot entirely on blue-screen with the sets as models or CGI that were comped in later? I don't.

What's wrong with the digital backlot anyway?