2 Comments


  1. Thanks for doing this “spoiler free”! I was looking forward to hearing your take on the reel, and as a non-spoiler guy, I’m happy you went that route!

    I have the theory that I am working on, where I believe that all the talk of “practical effects” and “physical sets” is Jeff code for words like “story” and “character”.

    It is obvious that the new team of filmmakers is trying very hard to win back the public, especially since the prequels (deservedly or not) have such a negative reputation. BUT, they can’t come right out and say “hey, we get it, the prequels sucked, the story was a mess, the characters were weak we know it wasn’t quite what the world wanted.”. They can’t say “hey, we are fans, just like you, and we understand what makes Star Wars special. maybe more so than George Lucas did” They can’t say all that stuff, it would just be too rude, it would cause such a negative stir in the blogosphere and entertainment press. So, instead, they talk about what they can get away with, which is things like the effects and the sets.

    If you look back at the prequels, are the special effects really that bad? (I don’t think so) And, if you ask yourself what were the weakest part of the prequels, more often than not you’re going to say things like story and character. A film with a great story and strong characters can live on with great affection from the public even if the effects are bad. Look back at all the sci-fi from the 50s &60s, that is still beloved today, and you can see the strings on the space ships and you can see the zippers on the aliens. (Im think of Stat Trek as am example) But the stories were great, so people still love them. But if you go the other way. You can have a film with amazing effects, but a pretty bad story, and it won’t be as loved. I’m thinking of Avatar as an example. Great effects, but really are there any avatar fanatics?

    Anyway, I’m not sure if I’m getting my point across, but to sum up, I think you are supposed to read between the lines whenever the new Star Wars filmmakers are talking about how they are making the movie. I’m not sure if this is rude or not, but, I can understand where they’re coming from and why they are doing it.

    Thoughts?

    Reply
    1. Allen Voivod

      I think that’s a VERY perceptive way of looking at things. I might only consider substituting the word “execution” for “story,” because I generally think the bones of the story were solid; it’s just how it was played out, with character and dialogue challenges, that became the issue. As you’ve often said about the prequels, “missed opportunities” abounded, and execution, character, and dialogue were the issues, not the special effects.

      That said, it’s easy to try to make a case for saying that the reason many folks are dissatisfied with the execution is because they think Lucas concentrated on the special effects to the exclusion of the story execution, but I hardly think that’s the case. The more I read the Ring Theory stuff, I start to wonder whether he may have taken the concept of creative limitation too far…

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.