Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The mighty General Grievous has arrived (SW:EP3)

This is topic The mighty General Grievous has arrived (SW:EP3) in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002980

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 02-20-2004, 01:30 PM:

http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/bts/publicity/news20040220.html

His presence has been whispered since Episode III production last summer at Fox Studios Australia, when Producer Rick McCallum hinted at "the new bad guy" during his online Hyperspace chats. With still a year to go until his big screen Episode III debut, the mighty General Grievous will see small screen action as part of the new installment of Star Wars: Clone Wars micro-series episodes.

"In Attack of the Clones, we saw that former Jedi Count Dooku was the political leader behind the Separatists movement and instigator of the Clone Wars," says McCallum. "In Episode III, we'll meet General Grievous, the military leader of all the Separatist armies. He's part alien and part robot. Grievous is a master strategist and the greatest hand-to-hand Jedi killer the galaxy has ever known."

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-20-2004, 07:47 PM:

Hey this thread rates right up there with the Barbie and Ken thread [thumbsdown]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-20-2004, 11:13 PM:

I actually give less than a [bs]

about the new Star Wars movies, but at this point in time (with just over a year to wait) didn't we already have the titles to the previous two?

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-20-2004, 11:41 PM:

Mark: WTF are you talking about? Ken rules!

>>> Phil

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-20-2004, 11:49 PM:

I've got to agree, this movie will be crap and I couldn't possibly care less whether I see it or not. Just like how each sequel in a franchise gets worse, this one will be no exception. George will be trying as hard as he can to outdo his previous films, and that will kill it just like how Return of the Jedi and the Matrix sequels (among others) got boring because they tried so hard to outdo their predecessors.

Blah. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-21-2004, 04:12 AM:

If it hadn't come from the official website, I would have thought it is a bad joke... Well, but then the whole prequel undertaking so far was a bad joke.
"General Grieveous"? Will Daisy Duck also make an appearance? Can I sue George L. for mental cruelty?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-21-2004, 09:00 AM:

If I were General Grivas, I would sue.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 02-21-2004, 11:18 AM:

I am sure that he would have used General Motors if that hadn't already been used in Loaded Weapon 1. I posted this thread not because I thought that anyone would care (I sure as hell don't) but because of the whole "it is so sad it's funny" kind of thing.

It makes me wonder if old George really even cares anymore (if he ever did). I just get a kick as to what stuff like this does to his loyal fans. Kind of how everyone expected that EP:2 would be called "The Clone Wars" and then were dismayed when the real title came out. Just how can anyone get excited about a character named "General Grievous"? The real life drama as far as what he is doing to his fan base is far more entertaining than any of the movies will ever be.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-21-2004, 05:10 PM:

Mr. Lucas should be called "General Greedy" from now on. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-22-2004, 12:59 PM:

I've always appreciated George Lucas's propensity to see beyond boundaries. He's probably done more than any single person to advance the state-of-the-art in filmmaking.

But, I've got to wonder about his choice of character names. Isn't one named for theatre candy (Ju-Ju Bees)?

Names that evoked giggles on first-hearing:

Leia Organa (lay her/orgasm?)
Han Solo (a lone hand job?)
C3PO (see him do WHAT?)
Chewbacca (chew tobacco?)
Obi-Wan Kenobi (a city in West Virginia)
Boba Fett (isn't that one of Matt Groening's strips?)
Darth Maul (oh, please)
Yoda (heard in the Swiss Alps, or with accordians)

And, what happened to Princess Leia's fake British accent? She lost it after the second act, for the rest of the series.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-23-2004, 01:56 AM:

quote:
George will be trying as hard as he can to outdo his previous films

I can't wait to see what will be cuter than the ewoks!

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-23-2004, 12:59 PM:

From a creative standpoint, I think George Lucas owes much of his earlier successes to the fact that he was working within the context of the studio system which forced him to develop his ideas until they could get past certain gatekeeping mechanisms.

I suppose he might disagree but I believe those people helped Lucas make better movies.

Times have changed. Nowadays, the only opinion that matters is his own. What we are seeing now is more representative of the kind of movie he would have made back then, were it not for the collaborative nature of the process which broke his spirit.

George has discovered a way to enjoy a kind-of parallel existence. This is the George Lucas that might have been. These are the STAR WARS movies that could have been. Would we have cherished these movies? I suppose we would have.

I suspect that the backlash against the new movies is really based on a sense of desecration -- not of the original movies but, rather, our memory of them. Our enjoyment of those movies came out of the historical context in which they appeared. With the exception of "The Empire Strikes Back," the movies themselves are not truly as great as most of us would like to remember.

If George had made "The Phantom Menace" back in 1977 there would likely be millions of fans of Jar-Jar Binks. It's possible that we would have rejected Chewbacca by the time "A New Hope" emerged.

Thankfully, George's career is about more than just the movies he made. I would argue that his technical contributions more than make up for any of his aesthetic transgressions.

The industry on the whole owes a debt of gratitude to George Lucas for his vision of what was possible and for his commitment to realizing those notions.

ILM has revolutionized the field of visual effects TWICE (traditional and digital). Despite the present decline in status (among industry insiders) the THX program is responsible for the improved levels of showmanship that audiences are enjoying today -- even in non-THX houses. Didn't Pixar originate with Lucasfilm?

In a very real sense, George Lucas has touched and improved every movie. (Ironically, the obvious exception would be the original STAR WARS trilogy as it exists today.)

But to fully understand and appreciate George Lucas one must also bear in mind that he developed a great portion of his wealth thru ancillary markets. The original STAR WARS movies sold more than tickets, it sold toys. Those toy sales resulted in a hefty payoff for Lucas.

The trend continues.

EPISODE I helped sell the SA-10 EX Surround adapters and Lucas tried to use EPISODE II as the catalyst that would jump-start the dCinema revolution. It didn't work and he's gone so far as to essentially threaten theatres to commit to dCinema or they won't get EPISODE III. Lucasfilm helped develop the Dolby EX format and I recall reading (late 1990s) that there was a connection between Lucas and Qualcomm which was/is a player in the dCinema movement.

It is therefore impossible for me to look at these new films and evaluate them on their own merit. In any event, that would be too easy: Lucas has committed great injustices to the fans of his original movies. In the first instance, we have the less-than-special "Special Editions" which have unfortunately supplanted the true originals. And in the second instance, we have the emptiness and shallowness of the prequels.

If we regard these outings as a means to an end, we can see that they are qualified successes.

The EX format was not a resounding success and the dCinema revolution has yet to happen. So on those levels, the movies can be regarded as failures.

Still, they sold a ton of movie tickets, toys and DVDs along the way. There is no question that these films were commercial successes. And, like them or not, we happily went along and essentially financed those Special Editions by standing in line to buy tickets...and the upcoming DVDs are going to be HUGE sellers.

On that point, I find it interesting that so many people continue to drink from a well that they consider to be poisoned. As a manipulator of consumer culture, I'd have to say that Lucas is one of the best!

If the original series ever sees the light of day -- in theatres and/or on DVD -- it's going to be pandemonium all over again!

[ 02-23-2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 02-23-2004, 01:41 PM:

The 'Classic' trilogy will be available on DVD (4 disc set) in September. [Big Grin]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-23-2004, 01:46 PM:

Bite your tongue!

Those will not be the "classic" editions. They will be the 1997 Special Editions.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-23-2004, 04:27 PM:

I think it`s very simple: the original movies basically looked like everything was real. That made the fascination, plus the interwoven motifs from fairy tales, myths, westerns, knight movies etc. But most of all the feeling of seeing something that is real. There are millions of movies which take you to places far away and long ago, but most of them do not create this illusion and therefore the fascination.
"Star Wars" was not really made in the context of a studio system. He had to get the financing greenlighted, but then he was free to pick his crew and the movie was also filmed in England far away from Hollywood.
George showed with these movies that he was a master filmmaker because he managed to fit all these elements together seamlessly. I would have thought it would be no problem for him to create prequels which are movies of our time, but somehow fit stylistically with the original ones. But he really failed completely and miserably.
I think the main problems with the new trilogy are: that everything looks fake and equally or even more importantly: these films do not have a sense of discovery at all. It could have been so fascinating to explore where all the characters and story elements come from and how they - finally - come together. But instead, we are shown a very small world in which all the characters are basically there from the start, like in a TV series. The young Greedo, Boba Fett, the 2 droids etc., they are all there. That is really idiotic and completely destroys the sense of exploring a big mysterious universe.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-23-2004, 08:19 PM:

quote:
"Star Wars" was not really made in the context of a studio system. He had to get the financing greenlighted, but then he was free to pick his crew and the movie was also filmed in England far away from Hollywood.

That's what I mean -- he had to do some re-writes before the greenlight was given. As for that crew in England, they reportedly made life a living hell for him. Because of those two factors, I think he's being 100% sincere when he says that first "Star Wars" was a compromise and not the film he intended to make. I think it also figures into his present mindset of having to do things "his way." He's overcompensating for the unpleasant aspects of making that film.

quote:
George showed with these movies that he was a master filmmaker because he managed to fit all these elements together seamlessly.

By several accounts, the film was a mess when George did his first cut. The editors saved that first movie.

I agree with the rest of the post.

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-23-2004, 10:26 PM:

quote:
Didn't Pixar originate with Lucasfilm?

Yes, it certainly did. And much of the animation from the 'old' Pixar was just as groundbreaking as the stuff Pixar creates today.

-Aaron

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-24-2004, 04:22 AM:

Wasn`t George one of the main editors also? I thought that he himself saved a lot when the movie was almost foundering. Another element which made the movie was the art design of Ralph McQuarrie. He said in an interview that he was supposed to take part in Episode 1 as well. But then he saw that everything was already in good hands and decided he wasn`t needed. George certainly employs some of the finest talents money can buy in art design, but still - how could they have missed the athmosphere of the originals so completely...

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-24-2004, 05:54 AM:

Marcia Lucas was editor for some of husband George's earlier films:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0524235/

Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 02-24-2004, 10:56 AM:

My use of 'classic' trilogy was not intended to differentiate between 'classic' & 'special' editions. The intention was to differentiate between the "original" and 'prequel' trilogies! [Razz]

Believe it or not, but I never saw any one of Episodes IV - VI, in their entirety until they were released to big screen in the 'Special Edition' form.

It's my opinion that Episodes I, II & IV (III will probably need to get put in this group as well), all would have turned out better with someone other than George Lucas directing them.

Star Wars Episode V: the Empire Strikes Back (as far as I'm concerned) is the best of the bunch. [Big Grin]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-24-2004, 11:31 AM:

quote:
Wasn`t George one of the main editors also? I thought that he himself saved a lot when the movie was almost foundering.

George was the original editor of the film but he eventually had to turn the film over to Marcia.

From "Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas" by Dale Pollock:

quote:
[Alan Ladd, Jr] visited Elstree in May and saw forty minutes of footage that was so bad it almost scuttled the movie. Dailies were not shipped back to the studio (Star Wars was an independent production), so Ladd had seen nothing. The poorly stitched assemblage of scenes without music or special effects unnerved him. The dialogue was laughable, the lighting was inconsistent, and the shots often didn't match. Ladd had a soul-searching talk with Lucas before being reassured that George indeed knew what he was doing.

Lucas was even more upset -- "I just wish you had never seen this stuff," he told Ladd of the sloppily edited footage. Privately, he said to himself, "Oh my God, I'm doing a terrible job here. It must be me." He showed Marcia the footage, and she agreed to take apart the movie and begin reediting from scratch. Lucas' confidence was shaken by the incident. What if the movie really was bad and Fox tried to take it away from him? (169-170)

One also has to wonder how different Star Wars would have been without John Williams' contribution:

quote:
The music's impact was immediate and dramatic when incorporated into the film. "It was a mind-boggling difference," remembers Carroll Ballard, who saw Star Wars before and after Williams's score was added. "It gave the hokey characters a certain dimension. When you saw the film without the score, you couldn't take it seriously. But the music gave it the style of an old-time serial, and it was great fun." (181)

I would readily agree that Lucas seems to have a knack for surrounding himself with good talent. Ben Burtt's contribution to that unique soundtrack is immense. And then, of course, there's the whole ILM team.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-25-2004, 06:40 PM:

quote:
that first "Star Wars" was a compromise and not the film he intended to make.

Every film is like that. There's always something you wanted to do, or do differently, for whatever reason. Even on a small scale with the trailers I have made... I can tell you something about every one that I'm not happy with, or wish I could've done differently.

But at some point, you have to "lock the reels" and proceed.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-25-2004, 09:34 PM:

Where is THAT written?

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-26-2004, 04:35 AM:

Tim - true, but that doesn`t change the fact that many people would like to be able to see the movies as they saw them when they were young and fighting with broom sticks as laser sabers in the backyard.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-26-2004, 09:58 AM:

quote:
Where is THAT written?

It just is, listen to interviews. I've experienced it myself. Michael, I'm not defending changing the films, I've never been a proponent of that, I'm just saying that's how filmmakers feel after completing a project.

Btw, I can't imagine... our broomsticks were horses. [Wink]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-26-2004, 03:01 PM:

Tim, I agree that those feelings are pretty common. There is a long list of things I'd like to fix in my first movie...and I will probably fix those things. Admittedly, my first film doesn't hold a significant place in pop culture and film history. I'm only saying that I understand that part of your point and I agree that it's a real phenomenon.

I would rather see the originals preserved alongside the SE releases. Better yet, I would prefer to see them made available to the general public. George seems to be the only person who doesn't share those sentiments.

It may not be healthy for Mr. Lucas to be dwelling on past issues; it may be a slap in the face to those of us that cherish those original versions; but the films are his and there's no law against what he's decided to do with them.

And what about Francis Ford Coppola? The original version of "Apocalypse Now" is history since the original negative was recut.

Similarly, one wonders whether we will see "Amadeus" again in its original form.

George isn't the only one who's rewriting film history. Why pick on him?

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-26-2004, 03:09 PM:

I believe Apocalypse Now Redux contains more scenes, but the original scenes are all still there and there has been no messing around with digital effects.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-26-2004, 03:14 PM:

...and your point would be...?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-26-2004, 06:47 PM:

quote:
the original scenes are all still there

They are. They're just in a different order.
[Smile]

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-26-2004, 07:21 PM:

"Apocalypse Now Redux" is a different movie -- seeing it is not the same as seeing the original.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-27-2004, 01:01 AM:

In the 1940s, MOMA in NYC had a retrospective of D. W. Griffith's work, to which Griffith was invited. They walked in one day & caught Griffith, scissors in hand, re-editing Intolerance before the show.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-27-2004, 03:27 PM:

A "director's cut" is one thing but the total loss of the original release of any movie is a sad thing.

Certainly, there are laserdiscs of the original "Star Wars" movies but it would be great to know that there could still be projected film presentations that would approximate the first viewing of the film. It's never quite the same when you're no longer in the time period of the release but it certainly becomes that much harder (if not impossible) to sample the impact of the work that moved so many people if that version suddenly becomes unavailable.

I can remember the thrill of assembling at the campus movie theatre to see the entire "Indiana Jones" trilogy. It was great to see them in a theatre again. I learned that the school was known to run these movies every few years, alternating "Indiana Jones" with "Star Wars." It's a little bit frustrating to know that the next time the SW movies are run, it will probably be the SE versions. I also wonder whether they will be forced to run the SE in film history courses. That would just be wrong.

One glimmer of hope is that the movies were released several times on tape and laserdisc. The downside is those formats are dying out. The tapes could only be so good to begin with and they will only last so long before totally giving out. I have the laserdiscs but my LD player died a few years back and I've never bothered to replace it. Besides, I would rather have a higher-quality DVD transfer to enjoy. And then there's HD on the horizon.

Over time -- as new formats replace older ones, and as we become spoiled by improved transfers and higher image resolution -- it will become increasingly difficult to experience these films in their original forms.

Fans, historians and academics are all in agreement that the originals should remain accessible. Lucas appears to be the only one in disagreement. I can't say that I agree with his decision but I don't see where there's much that can be done about it.

Unless...

..."by popular demand" (and the desire to sell it all over again) ?

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 02-29-2004, 01:35 AM:

Perhaps because Lucas was so pissed at having to "go through the channels" back then (notice that Episode 4 had the most "additional footage" and "enhanced effects"?) that, for his own mental stability he never wants those versions to see the light of day again. Those were not HIS movies, the SE ones were. [Roll Eyes]

The first time I saw Star Wars, ever, was the Special Editions in theaters. I never knew what all the big whoop was about. I fell asleep during Empire Strikes Back, and learned that the stormtrooper hover-thingy chase scene through the forest in Return of the Jedi was in the originals. It was too hard to keep up with all the stupid planet, city, and character names. And when Luke blew up the Death Star and those two torpedo thingies were headed in a straight line, (at the SAME TIME) then all of the sudden "hopped" into that hole (at DIFFERENT times)... that just plain irritated me.

Just like generations will look back and wonder why the hell Spiderman took in $114M in a weekend, I look back and wonder what was so special about these movies. Other than that they had that "movie feel" about them like so few do.

Are the originals available in 70mm? I heard there were no 70mm prints of the Special Editions struck. If that's true, then Lucas didn't only kill the chance to see the original versions, he killed the chance to see anything Star Wars in 70. [Frown]

=TMP=

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-29-2004, 04:09 AM:

All three of the originals (Episodes 4-5-6) had 70mm prints struck in their original releases.

And many (possibly all?) of the [original '77 release] UK 35mm prints of Episode 4 were dye-transfer.

-Aaron

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-29-2004, 10:12 AM:

Thomas, if you had seen those movies in their original forms you would have had an opportunity to witness and appreciate how technically advanced those movies were in their day.

In the course of "fixing" them, Lucas made his movies look like something that might have been made just a few years ago -- particularly true in the case of "A New Hope," which was subjected to heavy degree of alteration.

Now it's impossible for a newcomer to look at these movies as being special. They're not old and they're not new -- These are not the movies you heard so much about from your parents.

I can only understand these SE's in the context of the originals. On its own, "A New Hope (SE)" is little more than "just another sci-fi movie" with cheesy dialogue and a lot of run-of-the-mill visual effects (as compared with truly contemporary movies).

For many people back in the day, the visual effects made up for the cheesy dialogue and threadbare plot. So did the music and sound effects.

But, let's face it -- today's audiences have heard the "Star Wars" theme even if they haven't seen the movies. We've also heard many kick-ass sound mixes. Dolby Stereo isn't new anymore, it's standard.

The best way to honor and preserve "Star Wars" would be to restore it to its original form and love it for what it was.