George Lucas talks Lord of the Rings, Film, HD and more (1 Viewer)

[Max Leung]

Vincent wrote:


My understanding is that the IMAX cameras are HUGE. You need at LEAST two people to operate it. More if you want to move the damn thing. Although, they may have gotten smaller (but not by much). You pretty much need a three man submersible (one for the camera, one for the pilot, another for the camera operator).

I had the fortune to watch the IMAX film Antarctica last year with the director in attendance and told us about the camera: Back in 1990, IMAX cameras could not film any more than 5 minutes of footage. The cameras are also extremely noisy - dubbing and foley work cannot be avoided. They are bulky and heavy, and need constant maintenance.

I haven't seen TITANICA (it is IMAX right?), but imagine the costs of filming underwater for a few minutes, then having to resurface and replace the film, after waiting for hours in a decompression chamber. And the heat generated by the thing must be unbearable - as well as tolerating the noise in such a small space (although for only a few minutes, so I guess it isn't that bad).

I suspect you'll have to do as Lucas suggests...watch the (Cameron) film. Try to imagine how difficult it would be with a bulky IMAX camera, and how limited your options are. You also have more options with a digital camera - the sensor can be programmed to be more or sensitive to light in any given situation, whereas you have to be very careful with film (although film can give you a lot of leeway in post-processing for under or overexposure - digital cannot handle overexposure at all). Color balancing can also be done on the fly, unlike film, where each film stock is rated for a certain color temperature. If you watch camera crews around reporters, you'll see them calibrate their cameras' color balance on the fly using something like an Expo disc - taking a shot under the light with a special diffuser lens.

Admittedly, color balance shouldn't be an issue deep underwater - you have to supply your own light source anyways, so you can easily pick the right film without any worries.

 

[Grant H]

I liked that movie too. The one-liners and humor are recognizably similar. Guess I'm part of that very select audience along with my friends and family who enjoyed Scorpion King, AOTC, the original SW trilogy, AND the LOTR films. Maybe it's because I can appreciate films that don't take themselves too seriously along with those that do. Pts. 2 and 3 of the Matrix trilogy could have used a little lightening up though IMO.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Grant,
The sales figures also don't account for the passing down of the books, or the library copies that have been read and reread. Long story short, the audiences for each of the major trilogies are probably all primarily male (and skewing somewhat younger). No doubt though that SW skews the youngest and most male. LOTR has strong penetration with women, thanks in large part to the books. Based on the books, the age group also shifts older.

As for the other great trilogy:
Not at all. The mood was just right for the tale being told. Let films with lesser aspirations lighten it up

As for the rest of this thread, we've discussed most of it before. I like film, and I'll always like film. I like digital as well, and it is another tool for the filmmaker. Neither should be mandated as the proper medium. GL is a pioneer in the field and deserves credit as such. Any comments he made regarding LOTR should be seen as just that..comments. When he made the ILM comment, it was after decades of ILM obviously leading the way. It might not be that way anymore, but he should be proud. Three Oscars later, WETA doesn't need an apology

Take care,
Chuck

 

[RobertR]

I suggest your personal demographics are atypical. When I saw FOTR opening day in 2001, every person waiting in line was talking about having read the books.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Personally, I don't understand the need to compare a film to a video game to make a point. I can understand some of the aesthetics comparisons, but it's the other things that bother me. Personally, I think it's insulting to gamers to insinuate they're dumber than the "learned" film goer. These critics obviously still live in a world where Pong is the game people play these days. They've obviously never played Ico or the Final Fantasy games.

Now that I think about it, I wonder what all of this has to do with this thread. Damn, I'm losing my focus.

I think GL is an excellent visual filmmaker. The amount of imagination that goes into making his worlds is astounding. It's his script work that needs help.

P.S. I was amazed that GL was active in certain parts of The Godfather.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

For the 1998 Imax film Everest they built custom Imax cameras that weighed 35lbs and were operated and carried to the summit of Everest by one Sherpa. This was in 1996. A standard Imax camera weighs 240lbs. They managed to slim it down quite a bit.

So I think building an Imax camera that can fit on a small sub shouldn't be that hard.

Here's a quote from Breashears(director on Everest) on filming on Everest vs. shooting the footage of the real Titanic.

"The camera had to be loaded with bare hands in freezing temperatures. I can't think of any task more difficult and more cold," Breashears said. "I was watching a broadcast recently about how they filmed the discovery of the Titanic ... and how they had to go down to the bottom of the ocean in these million-dollar submersibles. "I couldn't think of anything easier to do!"

 

[Grant H]

Maybe. I just like the tone (and ending) of the first movie a lot better than where it went. I think the aspirations were a little too high for what they ended up with. I guess the "because I choose too" could cover a lot of what otherwise becomes pointless action in the end, but it becomes a lot to wash down for your average popcorn munching viewer. I like to think I'm somewhat of an intellectual, but I guess I'm really a popcorn flick loving kid at heart still.

That, and there are a heck of a lot of "why not do...." when it comes to Matrix and Neo's powers within the matrix. I tend to think a little bigger, but the W's did seem to try to cover themselves with the little philosophical messages throughout. Thing is, it FELT like a cover to me. Hard to get 2 more movies out of something if your hero can do anything, right? As it was, we had to accept that everything we heard in the first movie was wrong, but not really....I recognized pretty early on the whole yin yang thing (the Oracle's earrings might have been a bit much) and pretty much knew where the W's were (unfortunately) going. I was surprised when I first learned Smith would be in Reloaded. I knew there would have to be an Antichrist figure in the second film to make it interesting, but hadn't banked on it being a program and I think that's where the whole trilogy started to let me down, really.

We all believed in Neo from the first movie and believed no program could ever be a match for him. To have to throw all that out in the 2nd movie really took the magic away from everything for me. The whole "it's a Christ story, but it's not, but it is" is too many but's for me to swallow with glee.

For a movie series that started off being about bending and breaking the rules, the W's ended up strictly conforming to pre-conceived philosophies instead of doing something new. If they wanted too they could start whole new sets of sequels 2.1, 3.1, 2.2, 3.3, etc., etc., and tell the public they were exploiting the idea of taking different paths to different destinations from the same excellent starting point instead of exploiting people's wallets.

Man, I'm totally F***ing up this thread. Sorry.:frowning:

 

[Seth Paxton]

Same here.

And who cares if orignal purchasers already died. For example, my mom read The Hobbit to me as a child, which is what got me into it. I wasn't the one that bought the book though.

Not to mention that LOTR can be checked out at the library now too. Sales are a general indicator of a book's popularity overall, but the numbers certainly don't correlate to the exact number of actual readers.

My wife and I both just read her mother's hard back copy of DaVinci Code. One sale, 3 readers. Seems rather likely, especially considering the cost of a book still in hardback only.


The funniest thing about discussions of shooting in digital is that it always falls onto resolution only, as if the optical pickup system is itself identical. Of course that's just silly since how light reacts to the film varies even between different lens styles, let alone a system that reacts to light in an entirely different way.

Film has 100 years of expertise behind it. Yeah, I can see why someone would just dump that valuable asset and go with a technology some 10 years old that has yet to be shown to yield IDENTICAL results as every possible (regularly used) film format, lens and lighting system.

Someone like Spielberg or Scorsese knows what they are going to get on film with a certain lighting rig, film type, camera type, lens type, frame rate, etc. Digital cameras don't yet offer that known reliablity, and might not even be able to duplicate the same type of results that these filmmakers are used to.

And don't go into post-processing even because I'm just talking about what you can bring to post-processing in the first place, time-wise, effort-wise, lighting-wise, and so on. Maybe a director doesn't want to spend another 4 months in post altering the digital image so it almost looks like film when he could have already been done and on to other projects if it had just been on film in the first place.

Digital is not a replacement, it is a NEW tool, different from film.


As for the article itself, I actually agree with Lucas quite a bit. I don't think he should remove his own earlier works from the public circle even if he is updating and revising them. There is nothing wrong with the public being able to look at the progression of his publically presented works. And I do think that he has lost his way a bit as a filmmaker, but that isn't inherently the fault of digital work.

However, it has been shown countless times that necessity is the mother of invention AND creativity in filmmaking, and some of the most brillant moments in film come from the improvisations done to deal with a problem that could not be overcome. Just think of these 2 examples from the top of my head:

1) Holy Grail - not enough horses so they went with the cocoanut gag

2) Raiders - Ford is ill so they go with the "just shoot the guy with the sword" gag


Being able to do anything you want has never been a requirement for great art since no artist has really ever had that freedom. Painters don't have access to any type of paint on any surface at any time in any light, and often they don't even have rights over the content due to commissions. However, DaVinci, Raphael, etc managed to do alright anyway.

Even Lucas himself probably had his greatest artistic achievements with Star Wars, Raiders, American Graffiti and THX-1138 with THX being the ultimate example of doing a lot within a limit.


Heck, it is this idea of creating within restrictions that helps fuel the fire of a filmmaker like Lars Von Trier and the Dogme filmmakers.

To me overcoming limits creatively is a fundamental part of any art, but most especially the film arts.

 

[Brandon Conway]

*Has only read 1/2 of FotR, and owns all three books*

I'm sure there are many like me who bought the books with the intention to read them, but were sidetracked by other things.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Likewise here as well.

I love the way the discussion is going at the moment.

Keep it up

 

[Adam Horak]

Agreed, I know several people that tried to read LOTR but only made it 50 or 100 pages. They just found it too tedious. I can understand that. LOTR is not for everyone.

I also know some people who read the book many years ago and forgot almost everything everything. Seeing the films was a new experience for them because they didn't remember anything but the primary plot of the book. I know I can hardly remember much about novels I read 10 or 15 years ago, especially if I didn't find them particularly engaging at the time.

 

[Max Leung]

If you're including still photography when you say "film", some professional photographers now feel that digital surpasses film. So yes, you're right, digital is not identical to film.

Motion photography isn't there yet for the purist, but I believe, for intents and purposes, 95% of the population will not be able to distinguish between film and digital today. In fact, haven't some HT enthusiasts determined that the dynamic range of today's high-end digital front projectors surpass most theatrical film presentations? (Well ok, today's theatrical presentations are terrible...)

Digital is preferred by documentary and independant filmmakers - it's cheaper and offers more flexibility overall, when compared to film. At least, that's what the filmmakers at the film festivals I attended say. They love the medium simply because they actually have a CHANCE to make the film.

Supporting links:

Comparison between a (now low-end) digital SLR and a Provia 35mm camera

First paragraph of this digital vs. film site claims the Canon 1Ds digital SLR surpasses 35mm, and even matches medium format (6x9 inch) film.

This nicely written essay by a career photographer also weighs in on the digital/film debate.

Another great article - Digital is NOT film (it's hard to make a digital photo look good when blown up to a 60" poster).

 

[Max Leung]

Cool! Did they mention how often they had to reload the film?

With a digital camera, you'd have to keep the camera's batteries warm otherwise they lose their charge too quickly. A battery that would last for hours at ambient room temperature could be reduced to mere minutes in such frigid conditions...so they'll have to make a better digital camera, that's all.

 

[Max Leung]

I might as well quote these excellent points from the Digital is not film article I linked to before:

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

They didn't say, but he did mention that he would constantly rip off his oxygen mask and yell "Go back up, we need to do this shot again". I would suspect that they could only shoot for 5 minutes or less. So add another Sherpa to carry all those film reels.

 

[Joe_G]

Lucas admitts that he can't write.Everyone rips on him for his writing and saying to hire someone to do it.Lucas HAS tried to get help in the past.He hired someone on Graffiti and they totally screwed up his story.So Lucas had to do a quick re-write to try and get it greenlit.He had Katz and Hyuck help him on the final darft.Lucas brought in Leigh Brackett for ESB and she also screwed up the story.Lucas wrote the second and third drafts of the ESB before hiring Kasden for re-writes.Little to none of Brackett's script made it into the ESB.It was Lucas and Kasden.So,yeah, he does need writers for his movies,but ultimately he ends up writing them himself so that his story stays intact,the way he wanted it.I think Hales was a bad choice for help.I think that's why Lucas went it alone on ep.3.Word is that lucas had a ghost writer on Ep.3.Apparently it worked if Ewan McGregor and the rest of the cast and crew is praising the script for ep.3-something that didn't happen on TPM and AOTC.

 

[Jacinto]

What!? You mean to tell me that the people who would stand in line for several hours on a day when they should be at work/school were established fans of LOTR before the film came out? You mean they weren't just huge fans of cinema, someone who'd give up half their day for ANY film, the type that dresses up as schoolgirls for the midnight sneak of Mona Lisa Smiles? Robert, the only way your survey could be any LESS random would be if you only talked to those dressed up as ELVES.

I'd be willing to bet that if you surveyed the crowd in the theater two weeks after the opening, there would be well under 50% in the audience who had read the books.

 

[RobertR]

Possibly, but given that book readers likely made up the bulk of the opening week crowds and the bulk of repeat business after the first few weeks, it makes Grant's contention that book readers made up a "low" percentage of the total audience extremely dubious.

 

[Robert Anthony]

deleted

 

[Jacinto]

I'm sorry, Robert, I should have said somewhere in my post that I actually agree with your contention -- I just got a kick out of how one sided your anecdotal experience was. Fans of the book definitely made up WAY more than a "low" percentage of the total box office.