This is such a coincidence, as I was planning an article on this very subject. It's always been my opinion that Mr. Lucas is the greatest filmmaker in history, simply because of all of the great inovations and technologies that he was a pioneer of. James Cameron is the only other person who is even trying , as every other filmmaker is just concerned about directing, and not moving the industry forward. Well, it appears that Lucas and Cameron will be at Showest demonstrating the future of digital cinema and 3 D movies. Read all about it at the link!

http://theforce.net/latestnews/story/St ... _90357.asp

What sells movies first and foremost is the quality of storytelling, the performances of the actors, not some technological gimmicks, which is what Mr. Lucas seems to be forgetting from time to time...

However, i'm excited about this new 3d technology developed by Cameron and hope it catches on and becomes widely accepted as the new standard, it would make the cinemagoing experience something special again, would help distinguish it from the home watching experience and as a result bring even more butts in the seats. Benefits for everyone.

I read the same article yesterday at comingsoon.net.

Aliens of the Deep had some pretty incredible visuals. I'm sold.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

no ... what you mentioned above makes a good movie. Doesn't sell a good movie.

True.

That's actually what i tried to say, but failed miserably. I blame the language barrier.

But to some extent, a good story, directing, acting does have an influence on box office, don't you think?

I used to. While its wrong to say it "DOESNT" cause thats too extreme, its now only "1" of many factors.

Go to the main site and read my batman analysis and Mav's sin city analysis. Whether you agree with them or not, you'll see the number of factors we outlined for each movie. and the ones i did for batman aren't complete. Since then, i've thought of atleast 3 more. Soem time ago, the quality was a big factor. today, its less .. far less. mav is right in saying that george lucas is an exceptional film maker ... he redefined a lot of stuff about film making. thats why he didn't limit to saying direction or movies. He meant shaping the industry itself. notice how when every movie starts (and even games today), you see THX. thats just one of the things we dont take into account.

Well, you still seem to be doing so when agreeing with me and saying that it indeed has an influence, as small as it may be. I haven't quantified the degree of influence, i just said that it has SOME.


He may have redefined the industry, shaped it, but i wouldn't call him an exceptional film-maker, because for me a film-maker is one who actually does MAKE movies, which is the job of the director, well and Lucas is not an exceptional director IMHO.

diirectors are film makers, but film makers are not only directors. Jerry Bruckheimer is a film maker. Harvey Weinstien is a film maker. directors are the people whos job is to realize the entire thing on screen. they give the guidance to everyone what needs to be done. Charlie Kaufman is a film maker. At the end of the day, to me people like Walt Disney, Charlie Chaplin and Lucas will rank as bigger film makers than any person who's only job is directing and nothing more. Spielberg is a lot more than a good director. Even jackson is more than a director .. he established weta, new techniques for creating CGI that never existed, produced the films .. was in charge of a lot. To me Peter Jackson is a potentially great film maker (mainly cause i need to see more from him to establish his greatness.) Pixar are great film makers as well. Brad Bird directed it but to me, Pixar is much more important

Just to add to the initial argument though, you did quantify the degree of influence by stating how quality is first and foremost. While you may not have given it a number, you have established its degree of importance as opposed to others. Which is fine .. but i'm trying to say that my earlier reply does not agree with you on that aspect. I consider it to be just another variable factor now, highly dependant on the tye of movie and the effectiveness of the other variables.

Lucas has brought so many innovations and changes to the business... he helped revolutionize the blockbuster, merchandising, worked with sound, digital output, games, projectors, etc. I think he will end up going down as one of the great innovators of the silver screen. Which clearly he seems to have an interest in. As far as a director/screenwriter, Lucas is a master at story structure and his visual style is only matched by an elite group of directors.

But even if you don't like the prequels, at least half his (very short) directing filmmography is otherwise incredibly impressive.

I don't know what is going to come of all this 3D technology though. I'm having a little trouble visualizing it in my head or wondering what advantage it provides. It's clearly something that Cameron has close to his heart.

I love the fact that the industry's best talents at the moment... Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron and even Jackson with the sharing of info with ILM LORT and Star Wars are working together to boost the genre out and really crank out some worthy material. I think we all benefit from it.

Lucas seems REALLY confident with Episode III, he is poking his head out as much as he did before he kind of got bashed for Episode I and took a really low profile route with Episode II.

Ok, that's your interpretation of a film-maker, mine differs.


As previously stated, i made a mistake there ("sells" instead of "makes"), so... just forget that part of my post.

That's not true in all cases though. Often times the producers are far more instrumental in getting a story to the screen, or the creative mind behind something. Often times the project is set up for a director to run and then the director leaves at the end of the shoot and the studio does the post production.

Lucas himself farmed out directing (dealing with actors, locations, filming, etc.) with Empire and Jedi, but he was still 100% involved with the story, special effects, editing, music, etc.

If you walked into Hollywood, into a brunch with Cinematographers, Editors, Make-Up artists, and the like, and told them they "weren't film-makers" you would be lynched. They consider themselves artistic and driven.

It is not true that directors have ultimate creative control on all projects.

You're right, it's not as black and white in the film industry, there are a lot of grey shades. Everyone involved in making a movie is to some degree a film-maker...

one question then.

do you consider someone like spielberg a better film maker (taking just his directing into account and nothing else) than Walt Disney or Charlie Chaplin?

There are only a handful of directors who even have final cut.

I look at Cameron and Lucas and Spielberg and Jackson as the new pioneers. They're on the cutting edge and the entire film industry should be forever grateful.

They all work(ed) in different eras, i find them difficult to compare...

I'm not getting into a Peter Jackson bitchfest here, but I don't see how he can even be included as revolutionary to the industry like Lucas and Cameron, and perhaps even Spielberg. Am I missing something that he has done to advance the greatness of movies and technology?

Anyway, one has to wonder what this will mean for current action and fantasy movies, if this is going to be as revolutionary as Cameron says. We can't really imagine it , because we have no idea what it looks like to watch a film under these conditions, but will this make today's best films dated and obsolete, much like claymation FX or black and white films?

I do also think he needs more time to qualify (but i mentioend he has all the potential in the world).

peter did a lot of stuff with LOTR that hadn't been done before at this scale. correct me if i'm wrong people but i believe peter for the first time tried stuff in movie making that hadn't been done before.

again, this to me is more so in terms of production .. he still has mighty shoes to fil..

i can't believe i forgot cameron. he my friend is an amazing movie maker.

I don't know who brought up Jackson first but I mentioned him because the work WETA has done is on par with what ILM did with Young Sherlock Holmes.

Huh? So this 3d thing really is happening? I started a thread awhile ago about failing theatre interest because of dvd and soon, internet ordering, and some of the people said that 3d was the way to go. It sounded hokey at first. Just about how to be even more hyper-sesationalistic. Cater to epople's instant passive entertainment needs. But now it actually seems like a smart thing to do. For one thing it will once again make home viewing obsolete, and on the other hand, because home viewing technology isn't the same, and so much of a film's prosperity comes from sales and rentals, its not like directors will be able to completely ditch having good scripts and interesting content. I don't care if Man of the House was 3d, so is everything else, so I'm still not goin gto go see it.

I worry about expense of production though. If this becomes the rage, we can kiss indies or less established movie industries in other countries good-by. And as much as I liked Star Wars, LOTR, Alien, and Minority Report, I wouldn't want every movie I go see to be like that.

By the way, I am dissappointed that Scott didn't make the final cut with the other four. ANy way I can convince you that he should be up there too?

i brought up jackson.

Dolce, it was probably me singing the praises of 3D in your box office forum thread. My home theater system is better than most theaters I've been to.

I'm looking for a new experience and 3D is it. Anyone who doesn't believe in 3D needs to visit there nearest IMAX and see Aliens of the Deep.

i still haven't seen it but dolce, 3d will not be dominated by just blockbusters. Like loyal sad, look at aliens of the deep. I'm dying to see this.

ALiens of the Deep? Is that the Cameron docu/drama about the Titanic?

no its about wild life in the deepest parts of the water. Its amazing cause that documentary involved NASA. I believe NASA even learnt a lot about how to about doing space exploration from that.