Poll: Is it acceptable for a future director to not watch the star wars movies?

[OZ7O]

[DISCLAMER:I'm only 14 hence I wasn't a thing when the star wars movies where big]
I'm sick,and when you are sick you lay in bed,play games and watch whatevers on T.V.And one day I saw Empire strikes back,and I thought I should give it a shot since I never have seen a star wars movie from beggining to end...And while watching it I couldn't help feeling bored of it.I already know whats going to happen because the internet and the effects/acting is really bad.That made think,do people really love the MOVIES or the UNIVERSE....or the NOSTALGIA? So to sum it up,why do people like star wars so much and do you think it is a must for the new generation to watch old and dated movies like star wars and the not so old Lord of the rings (9 HOURS FOR A TRILOGY?!!)

 

[Darken12]

Your poll was terribly made, I'm sorry. The title of the thread says "is it acceptable not to watch" while the poll question says "does a future director have to watch" so I ended up voting Yes by mistake.

In short, yes, it is acceptable. Or no, s/he doesn't have to. You do what you want to do, artistically, and if people get up in arms when it comes to LGBTQ+/feminism/racial activism/etc. and scream "YOU CAN'T TELL AN ARTIST WHAT TO DO!" at the top of their lungs, then the same applies here.

 

[madwarper]

[DISCLAMER:I'm only 14 hence I wasn't a thing when the star wars movies where were big]

Fixed.

So to sum it up,why do people like star wars so much

Because, they (the non-'enhanced' version) are good. This isn't nostalgia, this is just pure quality.

and do you think it is a must for the new generation to watch old and dated movies like star wars

A 'must'? No. But, highly recommended none the less.

and the not so old Lord of the rings (9 HOURS FOR A TRILOGY?!!)

In terms of cinematography, LotR is worth a study for future directors.
In terms of being a complete failure as an adaption of a classic work, it's serves as a lesson of what not to do.

 

[Pinkamena]

If a person want to become a director, he'll watch movies because he's interested in them, not because he "have to". I'll leave it to someone else to explain why the three first Star Wars movies are important movie history.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Star Wars and Jaws helped create the movie blockbuster for one thing. They also revolutionized stop motion and model based special effects. Before Star Wars, shows like Star Trek or Buck Rogers created the illusion of movement by simply tugging the model across the screen. Star Wars did the opposite, moving the camera around the model, allowing for far greater mobility to be emulated when the footage was played back.

The one thing I am worried about with Abrams is that he will just cram as many catchphrases into the film like he did with Star Trek 2009. Almost like he needed to plug the famous lines to convince people that these actually were the same characters. The problem with this is that, Star Wars never stopped using the catchphrases and famous lines. They were all constantly reused and recycled, even to this day. I have a bad feeling about this, all too easy, these have been repeated and done to death. If Abrams thinks that using these lines to look cool will get a nostalgic reaction, he's got another thing coming.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Did you watch the original version on a massive screen with a well calibrated sound system? Also, did you watch A New Hope Star Wars first? If not, come back after you have. You can't really understand these movies if all you've done is watched them on TV with commercials and crappy speakers. For that matter, you've never /really/ seen them unless you've seen them in a commercial theater. I'm still annoyed that they stopped with the 3D re-releases after The Phantom Menace, because hack job or not, it was worth it just to get these movies back where they belong, in an actual theater. It's also why I plan on going to see Jurassic Park when it gets a limited re-release to advertise the 3D bluray next month.

As for your question, there's a lot to learn from watching old movies, and I really can't see a director caring enough to go into the field but not caring enough to actually watch movies. A director should eat, breath, and sleep movies, not merely try to create their own in a vacuum. There's a reason why really old (especially early silent) movies don't seem like anything special today, and it's because directors since have learned from and built on them, in many ways making them obsolete.

However, it usually doesn't matter much if you haven't seen a specific movie... unless you're making a sequel to it. That's why I was pissed off about JJ Abrams' take on Star Trek, but hopeful for his take on Star Wars -- Star Wars is what he wanted to do all along, he never gave a rip about Star Trek.

 

[Pinkamena]

The one thing I am worried about with Abrams is that he will just cram as many catchphrases into the film like he did with Star Trek 2009. Almost like he needed to plug the famous lines to convince people that these actually were the same characters. The problem with this is that, Star Wars never stopped using the catchphrases and famous lines. They were all constantly reused and recycled, even to this day. I have a bad feeling about this, all too easy, these have been repeated and done to death. If Abrams thinks that using these lines to look cool will get a nostalgic reaction, he's got another thing coming.

If God has mercy, Abrams will realize how important it is that he does not fuck this movie up in any way at all, and plays it safe. I. e. he'll look at the three first movies, figure out what made them special, then look at the three last ones and see how he shouldn't do it. Add a dash of Abrams magic and pixie dust, and out comes a decent Star Wars movie that doesn't upset the fans and/or disregard canon.

 

[Oroboros]

I think that directors should have to not only have watched prior genre/series material relevent to what they are directing, but that they should have to have a certain respect for the work before they are even considered. It's not bad per se that you don't like the Empire Strikes Back-different strokes for different folks and all that. However, I do think there is something wrong afoot when a sequel is made in poor repect to the original source material, oftentimes retconnign the prior work into something more consumable to a wider audience-and before soemone labels me an 'elitist' or whatever, I'm not saying that soemthing is inherently 'bad' just because it is popular. Rather, what is offensive is the subversion of a prior niche work. Homogenization for a broader audience due to directors/writers etc who don't really have a respect for the material is a problem, and the end result is that a show/movie series/game series/etc that many may have liked for whatever attributes it had as a niche product are stripped away. Where can those fans go for their 'fix' of whatever they found unique and satisfying about that product that can no longer be provided by it?

A good example of this I feel, is not only the Star Wars series, but the Star Trek franchise. It's widely touted that JJ's Trek is responsible for bringing in a new generation of fans to the franchise, but at what price? The film resembles neither the Original Series, nor the Original Series movies, nor the Next Generation era in tone, aesthetics or characterization at all. Ma it have been a good movie? I tend to think not, but there are plenty who disagree with me. However, I definately think it wasn't a good *Trek* movie. Most of what made the different series unique and special was removed or reduced to pop-culture startrek references that non-trek fans would understand. In the end we are left with a movie that begs the question 'why even bother slapping the 'Trek' name on it?

If someone is planning to make a sequel, etc to a pre-established franchise or setting, I think it is definately important for the director to be familiar with and respect the pre-established material, lest it lose that special 'spark' about it in the transition. This is what I feel happened with NuTrek, for example.

TL;DR version: If you are following up on a beloved franchise, you darn well should familiarize yourself with the material and develop a healthy respect for it, otherwise you would be better off startign a new franchise, because inevitably the end result will be a product made to order for the homogenized masses.

 

[Fappy]

Episode V is one of the best movies ever made! YOUR OPINION IS WRONG!

AND NO, I DON'T CARE WHAT "THE DUDE" SAYS ABOUT OPINIONS!

Nah, I'm just kidding. You have a right to have an incorrect different opinion.

But as Owyn above stated you should really start with Episode IV first.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

It would probably be more useful to study what made the movies good; why they became famous, and what director techniques helped that happen, as well as things that didn't stand the test of time (for example the original trilogy have the occasional vertical wipe when they change scenes - which is just awful.)

Aspiring writers are encouraged not just to read classic books, but to write them out word for word to really get an insight into the language and style the author used.

I'd suggest researching director techniques, camera tricks, positioning, lighting etc. and getting some practical experience experimenting with what you learn on homemade movie projects; before Peter Jackson filmed Lord Of the Rings he began his career making cheap bizarre black comedy-horror gorefests, because he enjoyed making them, and they taught him the tricks of the trade, and let him discover what styles of directing worked best, and how best to shoot various scenes to get the most out of the actors, sets, script etc.

 

[Dwarfman]

[DISCLAMER:I'm only 14 hence I wasn't a thing when the star wars movies where big]

We'll forgive you - and your grammar - but only just this once ;-)>

...And one day I saw Empire strikes back,and I thought I should give it a shot since I never have seen a star wars movie from beggining to end...And while watching it I couldn't help feeling bored of it.I already know whats going to happen because the internet and the effects/acting is really bad.

I find this odd. Empire in my mind is the best of the films. The special effects were brilliant - remember using computers for special effects wasn't thought of back in 1980. And the writing was probably the best out of all 6 movies.

That made think,do people really love the MOVIES or the UNIVERSE....or the NOSTALGIA?

All three. Episodes 4-6 were a staple for myself and my friends for decades and we used to be able to quote the movies word for word.
The universe is probably the best part. As much as George Lucas is a mediocre director he is a brilliant ideas man and the Star Wars universe is an amazing unique diverse place, one of my favourite Table-top RPGs to play has always been Star Wars RPG.
And of course nostalgia. Don't forget son we were all wee babies and school kids when these movies came out. They latched on to our little brains, held onto our dreams and thoughts and wouldn't let go for years and years. Damn right there's nostalgia!

So to sum it up,why do people like star wars so much and do you think it is a must for the new generation to watch old and dated movies like star wars and the not so old Lord of the rings (9 HOURS FOR A TRILOGY?!!)

Look above, however to summarise Star wars was unique, innovative and ground breaking for it's time. If these movies didn't exist then innovation and special effects in movies would still be back in the golden era somewhere. So should a new budding director watch Star wars absolutely, if only for these reasons alone.

That being said. Why shouldn't you watch older movies? I'm not going to say something like YOU MUST WATCH OLD AND DATED MOVIES!!! But why would you not want to watch them?
I'll recommend you three movies to watch. Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis'(1920); The Original 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' (1951); Akira Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai' (1954). All three are black and white - Heck one's a silent film. All three are old and outdated and all three have inspired generations of directors and films everywhere. They are also my top three favourite films of all time but that's beside the point. Check them out. You may - or may not - be surprised.

 

[New Troll]

I do not care for Star Wars. I do not care for sci-fi in general. But I do believe anyone who wishes to pursue a career in directing should watch those movies (and every other movie they get a chance to) to further their "education" within their field of choice.

Does a baseball pitcher need to know what it means to play as an outfielder. No, but it sure would help his team if he did. Do waiters need to know what the bartender keeps stocked behind his bar? No, but it sure is nice/ easier when they do.

Personally, I work in electronics retail, and even though I might not care for the Wii personally, it sure does help my job knowing as much about the system as I can.

 

[Tanakh]

29 here and I think they are pretty forgettable, don't care about their universe, bad acting, bland plot. You might want to watch them to see a showcase of very good special effects for the 80's; or to see how to sell and then commercialize to death a franchise.

Love light sabers tough.

 

[Phuctifyno]

[DISCLAMER:I'm only 14 hence I wasn't a thing when the star wars movies where were never stopped being big]

Fixed.

Fixed better.

If a person want to become a director, he'll watch movies because he's interested in them, not because he "have to". I'll leave it to someone else to explain why the three first Star Wars movies are important movie history.

Thanks, I'll take it from here. Ahem. Because duh. G'night, everybody.

[skulks back]

Yeah, it seems pretty incongruous to be interested in being a director and to not want to watch them. It doesn't make much sense to be so interested in film as to want to make your own, but to have no interest in Star Wars. It's cultural impact reinforces that fact that it is one of the most exemplary uses of the medium in existence. Some dodgy dialogue or acting here and there is not enough to demerit everything those films do right. (original trilogy)

If you were really interested in being a director, of course you don't have to watch them, you'd just be stupid not to. Your enjoyment of a movie isn't a good enough reason to watch or not watch it if it has massive educational value. The Star Wars movies, the good and the bad (and especially when contrasted), contain invaluable lessons.

Also, those are not bad special effects, not by any objective measuring stick or stretch of the imagination. You're young (maybe (internet)) so it's forgivable, but one day you'll understand how shitty CGI looks and that you've only accepted it because it's what you've grown up with, and it being fucking everywhere makes it pretty easy to accept. I've never met a single intelligent adult who said "oooh, more CGI please." It's always, "well, it almost looked real." followed by a shrug, a sigh, and shoegazing.

While not always perfect, practical effects at least stand a chance against your subconscious by being physically real and taking too long to dissect before your brain gets moved along by the story. Computers cannot perfectly imitate realistic light or movement, and your subconcious singles it out in a micro-second and categorizes it as not real. The primary goal of a live action movie (particularly fantasy, horror, or sci-fi) is to show the audience what these imaginary or unreal things would look like in real life, which is failed as soon as CGI shows up because that contract has been broken and you're now watching a cartoon. Worst of all, you're aware that you're now watching a cartoon, so if you're still convinced at that point that the movie is doing its job, you're fooling yourself.

Sure, ESB had a few twitchy looking stop/motion shots, but nothing CGI could ever look as good as Lando flying the Falcon through bowels of the Death Star in ROTJ. Ever. YYYYIIIEEEEEEEHHHAAAAHHH!!!!!

 

[Goofguy]

You don't have to watch it. However, I'd like to think a budding director would want to view a pivotal part of cinematic history in order to become better educated at their craft.

Also, try to appreciate the sum of the parts. The acting and effects may be off but it's a 33 year old movie. There's a reason it's stood the test of time and is still one of the most popular trilogies to this day.

 

[Defeated Detective]

This is honestly a very retarded question. If you aim to be a director, you need a good basis for the things you will work on, classics are there not only as a good basis but as a source of inspiration.

If you don't want your movie to be pooped on by Plinkett in the future, start appreciating good movies for what they are, this weighs even more when you actually intend to be a film director.

 

[OZ7O]

This is honestly a very retarded question. If you aim to be a director, you need a good basis for the things you will work on, classics are there not only as a good basis but as a source of inspiration.

If you don't want your movie to be pooped on by Plinkett in the future, start appreciating good movies for what they are, this weighs even more when you actually intend to be a film director.

No,what I wanted to ask is if you already know what happens in the movies and you already know some scenes of the movie,should you watch it?I don't want to waste my time in a trilogy I haven't watched but already know,I would much radder watch other movies that I DON'T know the story and ending.You see what I'm saying?

 

[Shoggoth2588]

It's not really necessary: Star Wars isn't a holy work after all. I answered that it depends however; If a director, actor, writer, etc is planning to make an adaptation, spin-off, etc set in the Star Wars universe than those people damn well better know what they're doing and what they're getting into. As for the next group of people setting out to make the next big sci-fi or, sci-fantasy who wants to make it different from Star Wars or Trek then I wouldn't think it would be necessary. Hell, imagine how cool it would be to have a Sci-Fantasy that took after Godfather?

 

[OZ7O]

[/quote]

[DISCLAMER:I'm only 14 hence I wasn't a thing when the star wars movies where were never stopped being big]

Fixed.

Fixed better.

If a person want to become a director, he'll watch movies because he's interested in them, not because he "have to". I'll leave it to someone else to explain why the three first Star Wars movies are important movie history.

Thanks, I'll take it from here. Ahem. Because duh. G'night, everybody.

[skulks back]

Yeah, it seems pretty incongruous to be interested in being a director and to not want to watch them. It doesn't make much sense to be so interested in film as to want to make your own, but to have no interest in Star Wars. It's cultural impact reinforces that fact that it is one of the most exemplary uses of the medium in existence. Some dodgy dialogue or acting here and there is not enough to demerit everything those films do right. (original trilogy)

If you were really interested in being a director, of course you don't have to watch them, you'd just be stupid not to. Your enjoyment of a movie isn't a good enough reason to watch or not watch it if it has massive educational value. The Star Wars movies, the good and the bad (and especially when contrasted), contain invaluable lessons.

Also, those are not bad special effects, not by any objective measuring stick or stretch of the imagination. You're young (maybe (internet)) so it's forgivable, but one day you'll understand how shitty CGI looks and that you've only accepted it because it's what you've grown up with, and it being fucking everywhere makes it pretty easy to accept. I've never met a single intelligent adult who said "oooh, more CGI please." It's always, "well, it almost looked real." followed by a shrug, a sigh, and shoegazing.

While not always perfect, practical effects at least stand a chance against your subconscious by being physically real and taking too long to dissect before your brain gets moved along by the story. Computers cannot perfectly imitate realistic light or movement, and your subconcious singles it out in a micro-second and categorizes it as not real. The primary goal of a live action movie (particularly fantasy, horror, or sci-fi) is to show the audience what these imaginary or unreal things would look like in real life, which is failed as soon as CGI shows up because that contract has been broken and you're now watching a cartoon. Worst of all, you're aware that you're now watching a cartoon, so if you're still convinced at that point that the movie is doing its job, you're fooling yourself.

Sure, ESB had a few twitchy looking stop/motion shots, but nothing CGI could ever look as good as Lando flying the Falcon through bowels of the Death Star in ROTJ. Ever. YYYYIIIEEEEEEEHHHAAAAHHH!!!!!

I agree with you,and the effects are (mostly) good.But for some reason I can't stand watching classic movies from the 80's and 90's that are heavily effects based (is that A thing or did I just make it up?).IMO the movie that is old and still has the best effects is 2001 a space odissey.That movie LOOKS like it's from 2001!!Sure it doesn't have as much shit in it as star wars,but every scene looks great!I decided to watch the hole series...One day...And so that I too can rage at Lucas for ruining the franchise.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I'm not a fan of the Star Wars franchise. I don't know what it is, but I've never been able to become invested in the characters or events etc. I think if a director is making, say a rom-com set in a city... why would Star Wars be necessary? On the other hand, if they were making a sci-fi epic about discovering your true potential/identity, it would probably be more relevant. Especially from a director's standpoint, shots/tropes used in a rom-com are going to be very different than those used in a sci-fi adventure.