Octopus Overlords

I would disagree that Star Wars was visually influential on future movies. It's aesthetic is very much in line with the sterile look of previous science fiction in film. White halls with barely any decoration is the standard.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 3:06 pm Just to be clear: my post was not in reference to either you or JCC's original post.

I realize that. I just wanted to express that while I personally haven't been able to get into it, I still can appreciate what it's done overall, because most of the time it seems to be all or nothing.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:00 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:49 pm This is an interesting side topic. I can think of two movies offhand that have HEAVILY influenced the look of modern science fiction since they appeared on the scene.

I'd say that Star Wars had a bigger influence on the look of modern sci-fi that anything else. I'd also put Alien out there for popularizing the realistic NASA/Industrial look.

To be fair, I think there are a few important science fiction films that have all contributed something significant to the overall genre. SW popularized the genre at a time when it was on a low. I think it's as mainstream as sci-fi can get. 2001 gave us a grown-up kind of sci-fi. Alien made corridors scary. Bladerunner gave us a very distinct view of the future.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:49 pm The other is, in my opinion (and don't laugh here), David Lynch's Dune. Two years after Bladerunner, he created an entirely new look for the future by looking at the past. His vision based on the Italian Renaissance set a standard for films that included future monarchies, fascist governments, etc.. The story may have been awful, but the visuals were damn near perfect.

I'm going to disagree here.

Looking to Roman/Byzantine/Renaissance aesthetics for the future has been a staple of SF since Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon (the 1930s versions, not the 1970s). Those styles have always connoted "big decadent empire" in any setting.

Ridley Scott's ALIEN was more groundbreaking in presenting a space-faring future centered on working-class characters and industrial factory spaceships. Still, he wasn't the first to do so (see 1972's SILENT RUNNING, for example).

Hmmm….i had forgotten about the early movie and tv science fiction. Metropolis also had a similar aesthetic. Although I would term that stuff more art deco than anything else.

Fritz Lang might actually be more influential on how 20th century sci-fi looks, now that I think about it.

Alien still has the creepy biomechanical vibe going for it. I guess that was more Giger's work than Scott's, but I don't think it had been done in film before.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 6:22 pm Hmmm….i had forgotten about the early movie and tv science fiction. Metropolis also had a similar aesthetic. Although I would term that stuff more art deco than anything else.

Fritz Lang might actually be more influential on how 20th century sci-fi looks, now that I think about it.

George Lucas stole C-3PO from Fritz Lang, definitely. And then he returned to the Art Deco look for the prequel movies.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:59 pm I would disagree that Star Wars was visually influential on future movies. It's aesthetic is very much in line with the sterile look of previous science fiction in film. White halls with barely any decoration is the standard.

I was talking more about the cinematography, especially the way battles were staged and the way scale was portrayed. The opening scene with the Star Destroyer, for instance, was a big influence on how sci-fi was shot going forward, as was the trench battle. And that's as much a part of the visual style as what color the corridors were.

Chraolic wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:04 pm Alien still has the creepy biomechanical vibe going for it. I guess that was more Giger's work than Scott's, but I don't think it had been done in film before.

It certainly influenced how alien 'organic structures' were portrayed.

He definitely got the audience into it right away. Now it's hard to have a slow-build in science fiction.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:20 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 5:59 pm I would disagree that Star Wars was visually influential on future movies. It's aesthetic is very much in line with the sterile look of previous science fiction in film. White halls with barely any decoration is the standard.

I was talking more about the cinematography, especially the way battles were staged and the way scale was portrayed. The opening scene with the Star Destroyer, for instance, was a big influence on how sci-fi was shot going forward, as was the trench battle. And that's as much a part of the visual style as what color the corridors were.

I would still disagree. None of it was demonstrably innovative in light of the numerous war films that obviously inspired it. It’s a great movie. A classic. But I don’t believe it was influential beyond making science fiction more palatable to mass audiences.

I also avoided mentioning Star Trek for the same reasons, and everyone knows what a Star Trek nut I am.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:21 pm

Chraolic wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:04 pm Alien still has the creepy biomechanical vibe going for it. I guess that was more Giger's work than Scott's, but I don't think it had been done in film before.

It certainly influenced how alien 'organic structures' were portrayed.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. Giger practically invented the biomechanical genre in science fiction movies.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:46 pm I would still disagree. None of it was demonstrably innovative in light of the numerous war films that obviously inspired it.

Innovative wasn't a factor - the topic was films that were influential on the look of later films. It doesn't matter if fifty other films did it first if none of them were the one that had other filmmakers imitating them/changing their approach.

They kind of go hand in hand. If there isn’t some innovation, then why would it be influential on other filmmakers?

And if fifty other filmmakers did it before Lucas, then how can you tell me they’re not the ones that are being imitated?

Look, I admit it’s a great film. It’s definitely a cultural milestone. I just don’t think of it as influential on the look of other films to the degree you obviously do. And definitely not to the degree a film like Bladerunner was.

But that’s fine. We’re all entitled to our opinions, of course.

"What George did for the first time was he took the concept of sci-fi being a highly polished, pristine universe, and he made it feel mundanely used. Things were rotting or things were oxidized and rusty. Things had oil leaks. It was a lived-in universe. I couldn’t phrase it at the time, but if you think about Ridley Scott and Alien, the idea of truckers in space, which Ridley Scott does beautifully, and the way he made certain parts of the bowels of the ship feel worn and used and dingy. That is the crossbreeding of 2001 with Star Wars. Ridley Scott is in the direct lineage of Lucas and Kubrick. His is a very different tone but he is as precise with his lensing. The areas of the ship that are pristine are very Kubrick-ian in a way, but there are parts of the ship where you can see the direct influence of Star Wars." - Guillermo del Toro

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:43 pm They kind of go hand in hand. If there isn’t some innovation, then why would it be influential on other filmmakers?

And if fifty other filmmakers did it before Lucas, then how can you tell me they’re not the ones that are being imitated?

Partially because most of them prior to Star Wars didn't have the story and production that Star Wars did. Hell, prior to 2001 most film sci-fi was 'monster of the month' fare. And partially because they're not the ones that made money. Let's face it - in the film industry, sales provide more influence than art.

Considering the large number of influential films that didn’t make a lot of money when they premiered (Bladerunner, for one…it made 14 million against a 28 million dollar budget and was considered a flop), I’d say that’s not really the case.

As for what Guillermo wrote, that’s a good point. I hadn’t thought about the concept of a “grimy universe” in Star Wars as manifested by ships that weren’t always fully functional and such . Now THAT I can understand and agree with. Although when I think of Star Wars, all I can really recall is all the clean corridors and sterile looking Deathstar rooms (except for the trash compactor, of course).

I think that the Millennium Falcon was probably the inspiration for a lot of grimy sci-fi.

I don't like using it, because I can't cite it, but I've seen a lot of documentaries and interviews over the years with filmmakers that specifically called out Star Wars as a game-changer for sci-fi films, both for proving that sci-fi could be a hit, and for the look and effects of the film. I know I've heard the opening sequence with the star destroyer mentioned multiple times, along with the trench run, plus mentions of the cantina (for quality and variety of alien species/makeup) and the first appearance of the Death Star.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 12:56 am …and the first appearance of the Death Star.

…which, IIRC, was very much inspired by the Discovery One in 2001: A Space Odyssey:

2001 made sf respectable. Star Wars made it fun.

Star Wars literally reinvented special effects, and featured a ragtag rebellion against sterile sci-fi. I’m pretty sure hepcat is either messing with you, or so far stuck in his early sci-fi fandom.

I certainly agree that it pushed special effects decades into the future. But we were discussing visual aesthetics and how they could be seen as having started with a movie, not technical achievements. As for the rag tag rebellion shout out, not sure what you mean. That's been a staple of storytelling for ages. Nothing new there. Hell, even Lucas will admit that his story was basically Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress.

Again: I have repeatedly said Star Wars is a great movie. I'm not arguing that it isn't. There's a reason it was such a phenom when it debuted. It was a wonderful mix of many other things that came together for one delicious meal.

You’re confusing his story with his character and set design. He lifted from established genres, but came up with his own creatures and used lived-in feel for the universe that made it different. And had massive impact not only on effects but set/creature design and storytelling.

The effects added to and pushed the boundaries of the visual design. Just the camera angles for the trench run proves Lucas was doing something special, even if his inspiration was a WW2 dogfight.

This thread...

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:53 am You’re confusing his story with his character and set design. He lifted from established genres, but came up with his own creatures and used lived-in feel for the universe that made it different. And had massive impact not only on effects but set/creature design and storytelling.

The effects added to and pushed the boundaries of the visual design. Just the camera angles for the trench run proves Lucas was doing something special, even if his inspiration was a WW2 dogfight.

I think you need to read what I wrote again.

And if you're saying that Lucas created unique characters, you really do need to watch The HIdden Fortress. Almost every major character in Star Wars is analogous to one in Kurosawa's classic.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:55 am This thread...

It would be if I had ever said that Star Wars wasn't a great movie. But I have not, and will not. I already noted that Guillermo del Toro's take on the "lived in feel" of the Star Wars universe was something I hadn't thought about, and that I agree with that.

But at the end of the day, I do think folks sometimes take any criticism of a beloved film too personally at times. I know I do when it comes to Con Air.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:55 am

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:53 am You’re confusing his story with his character and set design. He lifted from established genres, but came up with his own creatures and used lived-in feel for the universe that made it different. And had massive impact not only on effects but set/creature design and storytelling.

The effects added to and pushed the boundaries of the visual design. Just the camera angles for the trench run proves Lucas was doing something special, even if his inspiration was a WW2 dogfight.

I think you need to read what I wrote again.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:55 am This thread...

It would be if I had ever said that Star Wars wasn't a great movie. But I have not, and will not. I do think folks sometimes take any criticism of a beloved film too personally at times. I know I do when it comes to Con Air.

I hear ya. When people diss on the 2022 masterpiece "Me Time", starring Mark Wahlberg, it REALLY pisses me off, because, like, they just don't get or see the art underneath the obvious hilarity and acting chops on display.

Wahlberg as "sofa cushion #2" redefined what we think of when we envision the art of acting like furniture.

Star Wars also shows that a lot of things have to go right for a talented director to make a good movie. Star Wars was a mess until editing of New Hope focused on the main story.

A weak story is going to undermine the most delightful imagery. Greatness is not about consistency. It’s about adding something beyond what existed. Not all swings have to hit — just enough to make an impression or recreate a genre.

By those standards, both Ridley Scott and George Lucas were great directors. You don’t have to respect everything they’ve done. Just enough of what they did that worked phenomenally well.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:03 am Wahlberg as "sofa cushion #2" redefined what we think of when we envision the art of acting like furniture.

Well, you got one part right, there: ART

I'm not asking you to admit that the 'Berg is the got dam national treasure that everyone else knows that he is, so I will accept your referring to his work as "art" sufficient.

See, we CAN have cordial discussions around here with potentially hotbed issues!

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:05 am Star Wars also shows that a lot of things have to go right for a talented director to make a good movie. Star Wars was a mess until editing of New Hope focused on the main story.

A weak story is going to undermine the most delightful imagery. Greatness is not about consistency. It’s about adding something beyond what existed. Not all swings have to hit — just enough to make an impression or recreate a genre.

By those standards, both Ridley Scott and George Lucas were great directors. You don’t have to respect everything they’ve done. Just enough of what they did that worked phenomenally well.

"Were" being the key word here. See Star Wars 1 through 3.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:49 am But we were discussing visual aesthetics and how they could be seen as having started with a movie, not technical achievements.

No, we were discussing this:

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:49 pm This is an interesting side topic. I can think of two movies offhand that have HEAVILY influenced the look of modern science fiction since they appeared on the scene.

Movies that were influential on the look of modern sci-fi.

Films that are influential are the films that inspire, which are not always the films that originate an idea. It isn't always something fresh, or innovative, or original that inspires. Maybe someone did do (whatever) first, but nobody took notice. Someone else did (whatever) later, and through a better implementation, or just the luck of timing, their version inspired others, not the original source of their ideas.

Hell, we could have the same discussion about games. Blizzard has rarely had an original idea, but their implementations are so good that they're the ones who are influential, while the originals have faded into history.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:53 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:49 am But we were discussing visual aesthetics and how they could be seen as having started with a movie, not technical achievements.

No, we were discussing this:

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:49 pm This is an interesting side topic. I can think of two movies offhand that have HEAVILY influenced the look of modern science fiction since they appeared on the scene.

Movies that were influential on the look of modern sci-fi.

I have literally stated over and over and over again I was discussing the LOOK of a film...i.e. the visual aspect. Period. Full stop.

Now you're just going for Tomato Tomahto arguments to keep things going. Let it go, man. Let it go.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:57 am

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:53 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 10:49 am But we were discussing visual aesthetics and how they could be seen as having started with a movie, not technical achievements.

No, we were discussing this:

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:49 pm This is an interesting side topic. I can think of two movies offhand that have HEAVILY influenced the look of modern science fiction since they appeared on the scene.

Movies that were influential on the look of modern sci-fi.

I have literally stated over and over and over again I was discussing the LOOK of a film...i.e. the visual aspect. Period. Full stop.

Now you're just going for Tomato Tomahto arguments to keep things going. Let it go, man. Let it go.

Now I'm really confused - we're discussing the LOOK of a film as well. Everything I've said about Star Wars has been about the look of the film, and the impact that's had on the look of films that came after. Period. Full stop.

You started a discussion about aesthetic influence, and keep telling us we're wrong because we're not including 'innovative' as an element of 'influential.' They're not the same thing. You don't have to be the first to be the one who gets noticed.

And for the record, I'm not much of a Star Wars fan. They're fun movies, but I'm not really invested in them the way some people are. I actually find them kind of shallow, and watch them as eye candy rather than for the universe or storytelling. Criticize Star Wars all day long - it's not going to hurt my feelings.

Then we're obviously done with the discussion we were having since we don't understand each other it seems. Let's move on.

I was actually really enjoying the discussion of visual aesthetics myself. I wish we could just stick to that.

I should probably just avoid creating threads while I'm tipsy on margaritas and disappointed in something.

Can we just all agree that George Lucas is overrated as a director?

I suddenly felt a disturbance. It was like a thousand nerds suddenly screamed out in anguish.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 12:29 pm Can we just all agree that George Lucas is overrated as a director?

And with that, George Lucas gave the world something they could all believe in, bringing the fractions together in peace.

Thereby, ironically, proving himself the greatest director of all time.

The paradox led to chaos.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 12:31 pm I suddenly felt a disturbance. It was like a thousand nerds suddenly screamed out in anguish.

Some nerds, but mostly geeks.

I think different people have a different opinion of what the term "overrated" means in this context.

Influential for future directors and filmmakers? That's a heavy ask, a movie can be brilliantly directed without being considered "influential". At the end of the day, the director is not (usually) the screenwriter. Films like "Bladerunner" and "Alien" were serendipitous enough to have all the elements in place as the sci-fi genre was moving into the mainstream. You can't compare that with "The Martian" which was extremely well directed but at the end of the day, it was just another book adaptation.

Box office returns? You can only consider those to a degree, otherwise you'd be including Avengers movies in that argument. No matter how great the director, there's a limit to the type of audience any given genre can attract. I literally have no interest in seeing Napoleon. I read enough about French history, I don't need to watch Joaquin Phoenix act it out (I also don't like Joaquin Phoenix, but that's besides the point). I will argue that only so many people are willing to sit through an almost 3-hour movie on the subject.

I also think "House of Gucci" and "The Last Duel" would have made much better numbers if they hadn't been released right after COVID closures, when many people weren't yet ready to go to the movies, and movie theaters weren't fully open. They went on to some very respectable numbers on streaming services later, and have 80%+ audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes.

IMDB ratings? Don't make me laugh. Like, does anyone actually look at those?

I've not seen House of Gucci. The story doesn't really appeal to me enough to seek it out. But I was under the impression it was considered a misfire by Scott. The Rottentomatoes score is higher than I expect though, at 61 percent critical.

I never pay attention to the audience score as that's just ridiculously unpredictable for honest evaluations.

Last Duel I really enjoyed, but it didn't stand out to me in any significant manner. The story and the Rashomon approach to its telling is what I remember liking the most. But those were essential to the source material, I believe.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:07 pm I never pay attention to the audience score as that's just ridiculously unpredictable for honest evaluations.

I only bring it up as a counterpart (comparison?) with IMDb ratings which have been mentioned earlier in this thread. I don't pay much attention to it either.