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

[Joe_G]

Lucas tells his stories using visuals.Dialogue and acting isn't the primary force driving his movies.I love SW to death and I will agree that the PT don't stack up against the OT.When the PT was released,I kept my expectations in check.When ep.4 was released,even into the 80's and 90's,Lucas stated that one of the reasons he started with ep.4,was because the PT are dull and boring in comparison.I think when Lucas started working on the PT,he only had ep.3 in mind.The reason the OT aren't f/x driven like the PT is because of money and technology - he could only push the envelope so far and this also limited his vision for the OT.The last I read ,Lucas talked Speilberg into using digital cameras for Indy 4 - if they ever get around to making it.I'm curious to see what Lucas does after SW.

 

[Josh Simpson]

I am also one who is very curious to see what George will do outside of the Star Wars Universe.

 

[Xavier]

Lew you are correct.

It was a Canon XL1s, which runs around $4000, Mini-DV, can be found at Best Buy.

Star Wars and OUATIM were shot using some Sony Hi-Def cameras (forget which models) which I heard run around $30,000...which would clearly explain the picture quality differences.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Bullshit.

Let me say that again: BULLSHIT.

Lucas CAN do wrong, and he HAS done wrong. When have I ever said otherwise? Find the quote, Mr. "My opinion is better and superior to yours." The very fact that I said I consider the PT good stories and not great stories means that - low and behold! - Lucas did some things wrong. That whole Anakin riding the flea-cow-tick in Episode II? Atrocious. That's just one example.

Just because I don't want to decapitate the man and feed his bowels to the wolves while simultaneously eating his testicles for lunch doesn't mean I think the man can "do no wrong."

So, take your superiority complex and shove it.

And to elevate yourself as superior as though you've never made a spelling error, especially on the internet.... - grow up.

 

[Kevin M]

"Once again Mr. Jones we see there is no thread that you can start that I can not take away."

Relax guys, it's Chinatown.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Well, I was trying to keep it on topic by dismissing the argument about this article being about Star Wars, but frankly, there's no way I'm going to sit around and let someone judge me as inferior, even on an internet message board.

 

[Kevin M]

Getting exaggeratedly combative and angry with someone (whether they drew first blood or not) doesn't go over too well here at the HTF.
Just a little more tact in the face of aggression goes a long way....just giving you a heads up.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Well, I'm not about to lie and say the comment didn't piss me off, because it did. Trust me, there was a much less cordial version of what I wrote.

I just get rather annoyed when people assume that because someone complains less about something they feel is flawed that the person must think there aren't any flaws.

But, again, this isn't what this article is about anyway, so sorry to everyone else other than Dave for contributing to the off-topic idiocy.

Now, I can see where people would be hesitant to shoot digitally if they can afford 35mm, but why hasn't digital projection caught on more? Lucas makes a great point about film prints after they've been running through a projector for 2+ weeks, and there's just no question that digital projection is much better in the long run for quality.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

Um...Has anyone heard anything new about Maxivision lately? Roger Ebert said in 1999 "I have seen the future of the cinema, and it is not digital." and that Maxivision was the future.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Hmmm... haven't heard anything, to be honest. I would also like to know what is going on with them.

 

[Vincent_P]

From the article:

"Jim Cameron is very interested in 24p — he shot his 3D movie [the Titanic documentary, Ghosts of the Abyss] using them. If you watch that film, that movie simply could not have been shot on film. I've used IMAX cameras, I've used 3D cameras, and believe me, you could not have gotten a film camera into one of those tiny submarines — they are just too big."

Then how does he explain the *TRUE* IMAX film TITANICA, or the footage of the actual wreck that Cameron shot on 35mm film for his film TITANIC? The fact that Lucas sees fit to flat-out lie re: film cameras being able to film the actual Titanic wreck in that article sheds serious doubt on most of his other claims.

Vincent

 

[Robert Anthony]

Maybe the sub he used for the TITANICA shooting was bigger than the sub Jim used for Ghosts of the Abyss? I dunno. I've seen neither movie. Sounds Like Lucas is just speaking from a position of informed ignorance, much like many of his fans do constantly on the internet everyday. Like me, for instance

I mean, he's used IMAX and 3D cameras, so he knows how big they are--the problem comes in his assumption of how big Cameron's submarines were.

But Lucas pulling junk out of his ass in interviews is nothing new, right?

*cough* 12 movies *cough* 9 movies *cough* it was ALWAYS six *coff hack choke*

Brandon--you and Dave have gotten into it before, I think, in the other thread. Don't sweat the small stuff. You too, Dave. I can understand the frustration in someone not seeing things your way, but let's not start trying to FORCE the viewpoints, and lets not write off other viewpoints just because they don't fit with yours.

At least, not yet, anyway

As far as Maxivision goes--I wish it would have went through. It really is a great format, from everything I've read on the subject. It's just very apparent that it was dead before it started. Not enough filmmakers behind it, not enough people putting money into it--it's a great idea with nothing to propel it forward. There's too much being already fed into digital for Maxivision to ever grab hold. It's probably going to be remembered mostly as Ebert's pet cause more than anything.

 

[Lew Crippen]

One reason of course is cost. Commercial digital projectors are quite expensive, so even most theaters that support the concept, will only have one or two screens with digital projectors. Plus there is not even any cost avoidance, as those same theaters still need to be able to screen 35mm, because not enough product is distributed digitally.

So for right now, from a theater owner’s perspective there is only added expense, with very little benefit. To be sure, with the ability to download movies from a satellite and project them digitally, will likely prove to be a more cost effective form of distribution—at least for theaters that show ‘short run’ films—but I would suggest that point has not yet arrived.

Lucas most certainty has a valid point of 35mm prints getting scratched, dirty and so on. It is equally true that on large screens the best resolution is still not as good as 35mm.

I wrote in an earlier post that it will be interesting to see what Mark Cuban does with his newly acquired chain. In Dallas he now owns two out of three of our ‘art houses’. One, The Magnolia had digital projection capability on one of its screens before he took over. When he made the acquisition, Cuban was quoted in the local press as believing that digital projection and distribution was the wave of the future.

It is still to early to expect changes, but it will be interesting to see if he makes any changes in a year or so.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

That's my beef. 1920x1080 looks stunning on a home screen up to 8 feet or so. But on a 50-foot theater screen, I have to sit way in the back or I see line structure. What about the really big screens, like 75 feet (over a hundred for Cinerama)? Is part of Lucas' conversion plan to tear down all the big theater screens?

Resolution needs to increase. I'd prefer theaters not 'upgrade' to an interim resolution.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Digital projection wasn't ready for prime time yet when AOTC came out; black levels were very weak and pixelation was noticeable even if you weren't looking for it. I don't know if there have been major improvements in the interim, but given the cost of an installation I'm suspecting not.

 

[RobertR]

I agree completely. IMO, for theatrical exhibition, digital needs to have double the current HDTV resolution horizontally AND vertically (3840x2160) with 32 bit color resolution (currently, its color resolution is inferior to film). The sad part is, even then it wouldn't match what 70 mm film was capable of.

 

[Jonny P]

What looks great today may look like crap tomorrow.

There was a time when everyone claimed that most people were going to make and release movies directly to VHS because that is what the consumer wanted and VHS rental and sales revenues were far out-pacing box office revenues.

During the 70s and 80s, most consumers had 16 inch to 19 inch TVs. VHS quality wasn't great, but it didn't look "too" bad on TVs of that size.

What people soon discovered was that degradation to tapes affected quality and longevity over time. People learned over time that VHS presentation was largely pan & scan and subsequently meant they were watching an "edited" movie.

Consumers didn't start jumping on board DVD in a "significant way" until players reached the $100 mark. People purchased at that point, but I can tell you all right now that a number of people use "RF Modulators" because their TVs don't have the necessary connectors in the back.

In some respects, consumers have been forced into DVDs. Try going to the store and finding copies of movies on VHS...you simply cannot do it. I am sure that there is a large segment out there that would be happy with the old VHS format for years and years.

The average consumer wants good picture and sound. But they probably aren't as nitpicky as most of the people on a forum like this.

We all realize that old LaserDiscs aren't nearly the quality that DVDs are today. There was a time, however, that LDs seemed to be the pinnacle of great picture quality in home viewing.

Digital movies like "Finding Nemo" and "Monsters, Inc." will always look good. They will also be the movies that look the best on LCD and Plasma TVs.

I enjoyed the presentation of both "Attack of the Clones" and "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" on DVD. "Mexico" is the more interesting to analyze since it is actually filmed on location and doesn't rely on blue screens in the way that "Clones" did.

It looks good. Some feel that digital is "softer" and less "photoreal" than film. Overall, they are correct in that digital simply cannot live up to film in terms of clarity and depth of field. This is true when dealing with digital cameras as well as digital film.

I use digital photography extensively in my business. Fortunately, photos in publications are small, so when you "shrink" them in Photoshop, they lose the "pixelly" look that you see when the image viewed at full size or in a larger format. I must say that the quality of the digital isn't quite as good as taking photos with a regular camera and scanning from slides or negatives.

But it gets better all the time.

More than anything else, using digital saves time and money buying film and having it developed. The average consumer doesn't see the flaws in most digital photos unless they are done on a lower res camera with lower res settings.

The day will come when digital projection systems are much, much better and more affordable. Theaters may one day even have a new technology that doesn't even "project" an image, but rather "displays" it on a very large format type of screen. Not that likely in the short term, but possible.

The digital effects in LOTR were terrific. There were moments when there was a certain amount of "cheese" (like when Legolas climbs up the giant elephant creature). The key was that the stories, characters and acting were top-notch in that trilogy.

But don't discount the "Star Wars" prequels. My niece, who is 5 years old, really loves Episodes 1 and 2. She thinks they are fun and enjoys all the "cheesy" CGI stuff. I have tried to get her to watch 4, 5 and 6, but she finds them to be "boring" compared to the prequels.

I am not sure why this is. It could be that the younger set has different criteria in mind today than when we were their age back in the late 70s.

 

[Todd Phillips]

I might guess that 5 is the age that loves cartoons and the prequels are more "cartoony" and colorful than the originals. I would think that an older child (say...8 or so) would appreciate the adventure aspects of the the OT more.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’m not sure of the models either, but I’d guess that both the Sony and Panasonic HD commercial models are in the six-figure range.

The Sony will cost over $1,000/day in rent or about $12,000/month. The Panasonic is somewhat less, but still not cheap.

And this would be without a lens package.

But both produce really fine, high quality output.

 

[Jonny P]

I would tend to agree.

I am just not sure that the prequels are films that will be appreciated in their time.

The problem that they suffer from is that we know what is going to happen to these characters. It is like knowing the ending of a book first and then going back and reading the beginning. Audiences are going to be skeptical and have their own visions for the "origins" of these characters.

Back to digital effects and filmmaking...

There is something to be said for earlier sci-fi/fantasy films where they used models instead of CG creations. There were issues with mat lines back when that was done, but the objects looked more realistic. It was likely due to the fact that when dealing with models and stop motion animation, a FX crew can't go beyond the limits of what seems possible in terms of physics and the laws of nature.

Images generated in Photoshop look soft...and they always have. It is one of the quirks of rasterization from vector-based graphics to RGB files.

LOTR did a good job of combining real scenery and real sets with CGI. They didn't overwhelm the movies with computer images. It was pretty obvious what was real in the LOTR trilogy and what was done in the computer. The effects were done tastefully.

That includes the creation of Gollum. It could have been the second coming of Jar-Jar. They took the time and effort to make the character more realistic. This may have to do with advances in the technology used, and it may also have to do with the fact that they wanted to make Gollum look and act more like you and I...as opposed to being more like an animal.

The makers of the LOTR films had good source material to work with, though. They had a complete story outlined for them. Obviously, it takes a certain talent to adapt a large voluminous book into a movie, but at least they had a start.

Lucas really didn't have anything. I am not sure he necessarily had any idea what he specifically wanted the prequels to be about other than the vague concept that Anakin goes bad.