um...the topic of this thread is about the new 3 D technology that Mr. Lucas and James Cameron unveiled , and what it means for the industry. Please try to see if you can actually post and discuss the subject, or don't post anymore.

Yes, well, Zemeckis, Cameron, Lucas, and Rodriguez all have 3 D stuff coming, so theaters are going to have a little pressure to meet those standards, but how many is anyone's guess at this point. I should have known Rodriguez would be in on this, after Spy Kids 3 and his upcoming 3 D film this summer. Some of the innovations with Sin City also show that he has his eye on the future of cinema.

So it's forbidden to ask what business PJ had at ShoWest, i see...

#-o

No, but I have no idea why you would need to ask what he's doing there. He's there to promote King Kong like all the others are there to promote their movies to the convention. He's also there to support Lucas and Cameron's new breakthrough in digital and 3 D cinema.

Peter Jackson is there on business. He's a filmmaker, and Showest is a filmmaker's showcase.

So i make myself look foolish by opposing your opinion of Lucas being the greatest film maker and believing that in order for someone to be deserving of that title he actually has to MAKE (not produce or be the co-owner of the company that makes the effects or anything) great movies, which Lucas doesn't IMHO? In other words, if you're not with Mav you're a fool... aha...

Greatest film innovator, yes. Again, never denied this.

Kubrick was better than Lucas.

Technological innovation is only one aspect of innovation. There is also artistic innovation, harder to gage and judge, yes.

Also, one coiud argue that his influence on the industry has not been entirely positive. There are those who don't like product tie-ins and the block buster film...and that all comes from Lucas. They do not like all the special effects and find them unneccesary.

My opinion of his work might be subjective, but there are two court of overall opinion, the general public and one's colleagues. On the artistic level, some of Lucas work is well received in both, on others it succeeds in one and not the other, and soem ofhis work fails in both.

I refuse to call him the greatest for his technological achievements alone. The meduim he works in has a strong artistic element.

Allow me a programming analogy, a good program is one that works..it does everything it is supposed, and allows returns the right result. But an excellent program is also well written, commetned properly, is easier for someone other then the author to fix..it has a nice style, at the same time its not a program that substitutes style for substance.

For the best filmmake, would be one who contributes both artistic and techincal things to his field. Just as the best programmers write sound technical programs, that are easy for other programmers to read and have inventive solutions to difficult problems.

AOTC is a beautiful film, no one can deny how good the effects are...but a film needs to be more the techniologically sound, it needs to havea soul and display that artistic element.

On that second part, for me (and alot of otehr people but not everyone) the film fails, and I would say that calls into question caling Lucas the greatest ever.

You your self siad in another thread that so people call Jimmy Page sloppy as a guitarist but he has style. In that case, the artistic vlaue of hsi work wins out over whether or not he is technically best.

I would sya Lucas could learn to be a bit sloppier, and let some of the technical stuff be less perfect in favor os more time on other things.

Lucas has made alot of technological and also business side innovations to the genre of filmmaking, those I do not question. But that is not enough to call him the greatest.

bumped

If they use the same technology that is used in IMAX 3D, I'm all for it. Previous to this technology, I had never seen a satisfactory 3D movie - IMAX 3D has perfect clarity and no eye strain. I wouldn't be surprised if, as the director's commented in the interviews, that in 50 years we will look back at 2D movies as we now do at B&W and silent movies. (Also, I'll bet there'll be artistic minded directors who still use retro 2D technology to make an artistic statement in some of their movies...) I'm not sure though if the retrofitted movies (like SW and LOTR) will have the same quality as movies that are filmed with the true 3D movie camera (eg: James Cameron's upcoming Battle Angel).

There appears to be more animosity between Jackson lovers and Lucas lovers than there is between Jackson and Lucas. :wink: Well, whatever. For the purposes of this thread, story/character quality is irrelevant. Lucas could convert From Justin to Kelly or Battlefield Earth to 3-D and the level of "innovation" would be the same.

On another note, I'm rather surprised that Pixar hasn't tried to get in on the ground floor of this. If anything is suited to 3-D, it's animation.