Lucasfilm "For Your Consideration" Ads

[robthehand 3]

http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/releas...ws20051206.html

:?

George Lucas - best director?

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

I saw that article. Hilarious.

[robthehand 3]

Hell, I just noticed they were trying to get him "best screenplay" too.

LOL

"You're so... beautiful."

"It's only because I'm so in love."

"No, it's because I'm so in love with you."

"Then love has blinded you?"

"Anakin - you're breaking my heart - you're going down a path I can't follow!"

:roll:

[Ray Barnsbury 8]

So the producer is awarded for Best Picture? I never realized that.

Ray Barnsbury - who thinks RotS deserves none of these awards

[gkgyver 1,638]

A piece of advice for Lucasfilm: don't ask for too much and you won't be dissapointed.

Omfg is that hilarious! Best *actor* ... I thought they were all CGI!

[Luke Skywalker 1,284]

So the producer is awarded for Best Picture?  I never realized that.

Ray Barnsbury - who thinks RotS deserves none of these awards

great nod to the guy on your avatar then

BTW it can win here:

Best Sound Mixing

Best Sound Editing

Best Costume Design

Best Visual Effects

Best Art Direction

It could win here (given other years, you never know ):

Best Original Score

And imo, i think it also may be worth:

Best Supporting Actor: Ian McDiarmid

The others well, it stretching the thing too far...

[Trumpeteer 243]

Only the Yoda ad and McDiarmid ads are laughable. (And once again, the score is not eligible, and someone should tell the publicity people that.)

The others have a chance.

I remember after watching the movie the second time that the makeup people deserve something just for what they did to Hayden. And then what they did to Ian after "Unlimited Pooooooowwwwwerrrrr!"

But the visual effects and sound editing people always get something. Well, almost always, with AOTC being the exception.

But sight unseen, this is "King Kong's" year.

[Jeshopk 8]

It can't win, but my tastes would force me to vote on it for Best Picture if I were in the Academy.

[Trumpeteer 243]

My tastes would force me to nominate it for a Razzie for worst onscreen duo (Hayden and Natalie) and worst screenplay.

[Morlock 9]

That is rather sad, that Lucas thiks of the film as Oscar worthy.

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

So the producer is awarded for Best Picture?  I never realized that.

I think it's been like that ever since the first Academy Awards.

[Morlock 9]

IIRC, it was changed in the 40's, when a producer got very pissed off that the president of the studio ran up to the stage and took the award before he had a chance to.

[robthehand 3]

The only one I think it has any chance for is makeup. Special effects? No way. They're not special anymore!

Now King Kong... that had special special effects.

[Jeshopk 8]

If Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz, both very overacted movies can be nominated, then I see no reason why Sith should not be, except for a change in general attitude about what constitutes quality acting and directing in modern films. Method acting always takes the cake now. Brando changed everything.

Now King Kong... that had special special effects.

:?

[robthehand 3]

Far more special than ROTS IMO. And far more likely to win.

[Richard Penna 2,083]

:roll:

Lucas... you can't be serious....best director?

[robthehand 3]

I think the idea of him being nominated for best screenplay is even more ridiculous.

But where the hell did Hayden Christensen come from? All he did was roll his eyes and pull faces.

[Morlock 9]

If Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz, both very overacted movies can be nominated, then I see no reason why Sith should not be, except for a change in general attitude about what constitutes quality acting and directing in modern films. Method acting always takes the cake now. Brando changed everything.

Overacting is far from the worst thing about RoTS. Primarily, it is a badly written and directed movie, neither of which is true about the two movies you mentioned. I think the actors did a fine job in RoTS, it's just that they had so little motivation and so little room to do anything good.

[Jeshopk 8]

Overacting is far from the worst thing about RoTS. Primarily, it is a badly written and directed movie, neither of which is true about the two movies you mentioned. I think the actors did a fine job in RoTS, it's just that they had so little motivation and so little room to do anything good.

What about the whole movie?

[Morlock 9]

Room in film has nothing to do with time. It is what they had to work with. Dialogue? bad. Sets? mostly fake. Other actors? often fake/not present. I think the makeup and sometimes the clothing sucked too, but that's less important.

[Jeshopk 8]

Room in film has nothing to do with time.

I don't understand that sentence. My point is the movie was a great event movie, and very memorable, climactic, emotional, etc. In fact, it was an emotionally shocking film while still retaining its popcorn value. A rare combination in this day and age.

[Morlock 9]

I disagree about it being very climactic and emotional. I don't think it was emotionally shocking, and I don't think it had great popcorn value.

[AC1 3,565]

Kids love it.

[Morlock 9]

I haven't asked any kid their opinion about it, so I wouldn't know.

[Jeshopk 8]

Many adults I know had the same reaction to the film I did. Actually, all of them did. Even if they didn't like the other prequels.

[AC1 3,565]

I haven't asked any kid their opinion about it, so I wouldn't know.

Well, I have. Not that I needed to ask, mind you, it's obvious the prequels appeal to many kids. It has fantasy creatures, duelling knights, cool moves, interesting swords that can cut through steel, a "princess", cool vehicles, evil baddies ...

[Morlock 9]

Well, all the people I know who've seen the film have been underwhelmed and/or dissapointed to various degrees.

I haven't asked any kid their opinion about it, so I wouldn't know.

Well, I have. Not that I needed to ask, mind you, it's obvious the prequels appeal to many kids. It has fantasy creatures, duelling knights, cool moves, interesting swords that can cut through steel, a "princess", cool vehicles, evil baddies ...

I know that about the prequels in general, but not about RotS specificaly.

Morlock- who likes RoTS, but thinks it's a badly made movie.

[Sergeant 1,093]

Only the Yoda ad and McDiarmid ads are laughable. (And once again, the score is not eligible, and someone should tell the publicity people that.)

The others have a chance.

I remember after watching the movie the second time that the makeup people deserve something just for what they did to Hayden. And then what they did to Ian after "Unlimited Pooooooowwwwwerrrrr!"

But the visual effects and sound editing people always get something. Well, almost always, with AOTC being the exception.

But sight unseen, this is "King Kong's" year.

I am just wondering if the Sith score is not eligible why do they bother to give

nominations to the sequels(like Empire and Jedi)?

It is very embarasing to see masterpieces like these to loose

some stupid musical or copy of the famous violin concerto.

[robthehand 3]

The rule didn't exist in Empire and Jedi's time.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

The rule excisted in the time when Return Of The King got an Oscar for best score.

It seems to be more of a guideline....

[ymenard 35]

They changed the rules after the fiasco of the "works that are expanded from previous movies cannot be nominated" rule. It can be nominated, the rule was only up a couple of years near the year 2000. Composers and their agents lobbied against that stupid rule.

[robthehand 3]

Well the Academy system is hardly "fair", is it? I think the rule was just invented so they could justify it when they didn't nominate a score that was popular, like The Two Towers.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

I'm not sure but I think TTT wasn't even submitted because the film maker thought it would not be eligible.

There was definatly a lack of clarity concerning this rule, at first it looks like ANY sequel score was not eligible.

[Sergeant 1,093]

The rule didn't exist in Empire and Jedi's time.

Thank you for the information.

...but now I am more confused about these masterpieces loss...

[Justin 2]

Where the hell is music?

Justin

[Morlock 9]

It's mentioned on the bottom.

[Damo 0]

8O  8O  :roll:    

Lucas... you can't be serious....best director?

Only just for the Star Wars movies.

[nightscape94 965]

Cinematography? What cinematography? Most of the scenes are lit bright so they can later change the color and shadow on a computer. I don't doubt that David Tattersall supervises that process, but no one would pick him over a cinematographer that actually had to worry about outside conditions with hours of set up, or waiting for the perfect moment in the day for specific lighting. That proposed nomination is laughable.

Lucas pretty much screwed the actors because of the lack of environment and the poor direction. Hayden Christensen is actually extremely good in Shattered Glass, and it shows you the boy can actually act, but Lucas isn't the right guy to bring it out of him. In fact, most of the actors owe their worst career performances under his healm.

Tim

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Most of the "cinematography" is decided by animatics supervisors.

[Docteur Qui 1,248]

I can see how the score could be nominated; it's hardly that "diluted" by previous themes. There's at least a 75/25 ratio of original and not original music. I'm also curious to see what they would consider pre-existing music in terms of arrangements; some of the notes may be the same, but it's hardly the same music.

[Morn 7]

Cinematography? What cinematography? Most of the scenes are lit bright so they can later change the color and shadow on a computer. I don't doubt that David Tattersall supervises that process, but no one would pick him over a cinematographer that actually had to worry about outside conditions with hours of set up, or waiting for the perfect moment in the day for specific lighting. That proposed nomination is laughable.

What matters is the result not the method. Why shouldn't they be rewarded for using a new method that works effectly? Innovation is good.

[AC1 3,565]

Lucas pretty much screwed the actors because of the lack of environment and the poor direction.  Hayden Christensen is actually extremely good in Shattered Glass, and it shows you the boy can actually act, but Lucas isn't the right guy to bring it out of him.  In fact, most of the actors owe their worst career performances under his healm.

Very true about Lucas and Hayden's fine performance in Shattered Glass. I'm glad someone actually noticed this. And it's got everything to do with poor direction and badly written dialog and not so much of "lack of environment". In Sin City, which is also completely filmed in a green room, there is no such thing as subpar acting or forced speech delivery. It is possible.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

I've read from interviews that Rodriguez actually took a lot more time to work with the actors and hone the performance, because he didn't have to spend that time worrying about lighting the sets and stuff like that. So a lot of the actors involved in the project said that it was both a challenge acting without a physical environment, but also interesting to work intensively with the director and their fellow actors in getting their performance right. And often, actors seen together in scenes never even played together during production. Thanks to Rodriguez working with them and knowing what he wants, the performances are still good.

Lucas, however, admits he basically limits his instructions to "faster, more intense" when shooting a scene. I don't think Lucas ever really was very apt at directing actors. Even in Star Wars a lot seemed stilted. Lucas basically collects all the elements he needs in a scene or a shot and then goes away to tinker with it for 18 months until he has the film ripped from his hands and has to release it.

Shattered Glass is one of those films I have on my "to watch" list, because of Christensen's involvement. I didn't like him much in the Star Wars prequels, but I've been hearing a lot of good things about his performance in this film, and it might be interesting to see him in a different light.

[AC1 3,565]

Lucas, however, admits he basically limits his instructions to "faster, more intense" when shooting a scene. I don't think Lucas ever really was very apt at directing actors. Even in Star Wars a lot seemed stilted. Lucas basically collects all the elements he needs in a scene or a shot and then goes away to tinker with it for 18 months until he has the film ripped from his hands and has to release it.

True (damn, there's lots of truth-telling going on today), as a director, Lucas isn't really interested in making a film "on the set". He likes to do that in the editing room. Look at the way he filmed the murder of the blue female Jedi during Code 66. That was amateurish (it looked like a fan film). The scene lacked drama and vision. You can't set that straight with another background.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[robthehand 3]

Lucas definitley worked better when he was pushed for money. 8O

[Morlock 9]

Lucas pretty much screwed the actors because of the lack of environment and the poor direction.  Hayden Christensen is actually extremely good in Shattered Glass, and it shows you the boy can actually act, but Lucas isn't the right guy to bring it out of him.  In fact, most of the actors owe their worst career performances under his healm.

Very true about Lucas and Hayden's fine performance in Shattered Glass. I'm glad someone actually noticed this. And it's got everything to do with poor direction and badly written dialog and not so much of "lack of environment". In Sin City, which is also completely filmed in a green room, there is no such thing as subpar acting or forced speech delivery. It is possible.

Precisely what I thought about the acting. Lucas gives no room to create a performance. The only performance I enjoy watching from the prequels is McDiarmid, since he can be seen having so much relish and so much fun at times. As Palpatine, I think he is the only character who's well written, though that also is lost when his face melts into Frankenstein's monster.

True (damn, there's lots of truth-telling going on today), as a director, Lucas isn't really interested in making a film "on the set". He likes to do that in the editing room. Look at the way he filmed the murder of the blue female Jedi during Code 66. That was amateurish (it looked like a fan film). The scene lacked drama and vision. You can't set that straight with another background.

That was my other big problem with the film. It had this great story, many huge, emotional, climactic events, and delt with almost all of them in a singularly unclimactic way. The only images that are really stuck in my mind is the duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan (helped tremendously by the 'Battle of the Heroes'), and Anakin leading the storm troopers into the Jedi temple. Well, the only images I remember positively. I'll never forget the two terrible uses of the word 'No', and the totaly amatuerish look to the last scene between Anakin, Padma and Obi-Wan, the one with the bad costume choice for Padme, bad hair for Anakin (though that was consistant throughout), worst line and delivery in the film ('You're Breaking my heart'), and the totaly ridicules and out of place Superman entrence Obi-Wan makes (which seems like something McGregor would've joked around with in the outtakes),

[Morn 7]

Yeah, I've seen history channel documentries on Lucas. Mark Hamill said it was sort of off putting when Lucas told him the worst part about directing is having to deal with the actors. 8O

[AC1 3,565]

Lucas definitley worked better when he was pushed for money. 8O

That's what I always say, it's like with Rocky Balboa. He also had to go back to his roots, the old gym where he grew up, to regain the "eye of the tiger". So let's take the technical empire away from Lucas. Let's equip him with a 16mm camera and sent him into the desert with only a small cast and crew. If he can make a film in these circumstances, only then he is allowed to come back.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Sandor 459]

Well; I thought Episode III was a great film. Period. When I first saw it I was thrilled and so were people I saw it with who have nothing special with Star Wars.

It didn't make 380 million for nothing.

The problem with you guys is that you have dissected the film to death. Not because you think it's a bad movie, but because you LIKE it. You desperately WANT to see the flaws and then, to no surprise, you WILL find them. In almost any movie I must add...

People often like to place themselves constantly in the position of a 'victim' (for numerous reasons). That's what I feel here. You talk about Lucas and as if he intentionally made ROTS to infuriate you.

He made Sith for all the people who enjoyed it. And many did. Sith is one of the only genuine hits the year has produced. And that's not because people are kind to the Star Wars franchise.

[Morn 7]

Episode 3 was the only new trilogy film I enjoyed as much as the old ones.... Infact I thought the first 2 sucked. Nah, episode 3 actually had a decent and emotionally charged story.