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

[unindexedsearchengine]

A director doesn't have to watch anything. He/she'll probably fail as a director if he/she doesn't, but still.
I, personally, dislike Star Wars. I understand and comprehend why they are great movies, but they are simply great movies that I don't like. I accept all the legitimate reasons for calling them great movies. I can't put my finger on it. I LOVE sci-fi. I pretty much watch all and every sci-fi movies/series, play all sci-fi games and etc., but I just can't for the life of me stop disliking starwars.

there are some slick games set in the universe, though.
[small]looking at you, KotOR[/small]

 

[Mike Laserbeam]

What?

I don't really understand the question OP...

If you were asking whether somebody aiming to direct films should watch any certain film, then no. Obviously not. There are tons of other films out there directed FAR better than any of the Star Wars films, watch those instead if you're looking for inspiration.

But if you're asking whether you should watch Star Wars, even though you have a rough idea of the plot and you don't like that it looks aged?
I don't want to force anyone to share my opinion, but you should definitely watch Star Wars. They're fantastic films. I saw Episodes IV-VI when I probably wasn't a huge amount younger than you, and absolutely loved them, because they're fantastic!
Yes, I too knew a bit about what was going to happen, because of pop-culture and all that, but that didn't stop my enjoyment. Yes, I personally could tell they hadn't aged particularly well, but again, I still loved them.

Why would anybody bother seeing film adaptations of books they've read if knowing the plot would ruin it?

So in short, give Star Wars a chance.

 

[Woodsey]

Lord of the rings (9 HOURS FOR A TRILOGY?!!)

3 hours a piece isn't anything extraordinary.

And I wouldn't say Star Wars is a classic that any film director worth their salt would have seen (they're not renowned because of their direction), but if someone was looking to go anywhere near a project that could fall under geekdom, they probably should.

 

[Ken Sapp]

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!!!!!

CGI has come a long way since its inception. And, generally speaking outside of those instances where effects do not measure up to the norm of the day, the only complaining I usually hear about the inclusion of CGI is from those who watch movies to dissect their flaws (every movie has flaws) rather than enjoy the story. I have met very few intelligent adult movie-goers that care or notice whether CGI was used in the film as long as the film itself entertained them. I have met plenty of "critics" who can't see the forest of the movie for the tree of CGI.

Can you honestly look at the following video and say for certain that it contains not a single frame of "real-life" footage without foreknowledge and without microanalyzing it?
http://player.vimeo.com/video/15630517
If you are honest with yourself then I doubt the answer is yes. Me, I will continue enjoying movies that contain CGI as long as it doesn't detract from the story.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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!!!!!

CGI has come a long way since its inception. And, generally speaking outside of those instances where effects do not measure up to the norm of the day, the only complaining I usually hear about the inclusion of CGI is from those who watch movies to dissect their flaws (every movie has flaws) rather than enjoy the story. I have met very few intelligent adult movie-goers that care or notice whether CGI was used in the film as long as the film itself entertained them. I have met plenty of "critics" who can't see the forest of the movie for the tree of CGI.

Can you honestly look at the following video and say for certain that it contains not a single frame of "real-life" footage without foreknowledge and without microanalyzing it?
http://player.vimeo.com/video/15630517
If you are honest with yourself then I doubt the answer is yes. Me, I will continue enjoying movies that contain CGI as long as it doesn't detract from the story.

Actually, a lot of early CGI was very much worth every bit of nitpicking it got, even at the time. So is most made for TV stuff today, although the theatrical stuff is very nice now, especially when it comes from ILM. I mean, I can't think of a single fake looking effect in any of the Avengers leadup films or in The Avengers itself, but if I look back at pre-Iron Man marvel movies, they're full of effects that were wonky even at the time. There was a good 10 years there where even the best CGI was still less realistic than your average high quality model and puppet work, the advantage was more in cost and range of motion than in realism.

Although oddly enough, one of the worst effects in the A New Hope special edition is actually a piece of wonky model work from the original. I always thought the obviously fake lighting on the land speeder and the people in it on the way into Mos Eisley was just bad CGI, especially because most of that shot had been redone and extended, but then I watched the original cut for the first time since I was six or seven. As it turned out, it was just Lucas leaving one of the worst effects in the original movie -- and really one of the few, if not the only legitimately bad one -- alone. You'd think he would have redone that one, but he didn't, despite redoing pretty much all of the stuff around it.

Edit: Misread your post. Still, there are a lot of movies these days with CGI effects that aren't up to par, just like back in the day, there were a lot of movies with model effects that weren't up to par. But I think we've finally hit a point where there's not much advantage either way as far as making machines look realistic. Explosions and living creatures, however, are still generally easier to make realistic with practical effects. Properly painted latex looks more like skin than CGI does, even with modern advancements in things like the way light passes through skin mostly doing away with the old porcelain doll problem.

 

[Ken Sapp]

snip

Actually, a lot of early CGI was very much worth every bit of nitpicking it got, even at the time. So is most made for TV stuff today, although the theatrical stuff is very nice now, especially when it comes from ILM. I mean, I can't think of a single fake looking effect in any of the Avengers leadup films or in The Avengers itself, but if I look back at pre-Iron Man marvel movies, they're full of effects that were wonky even at the time. There was a good 10 years there where even the best CGI was still less realistic than your average high quality model and puppet work, the advantage was more in cost and range of motion than in realism.

Although oddly enough, one of the worst effects in the A New Hope special edition is actually a piece of wonky model work from the original. I always thought the obviously fake lighting on the land speeder and the people in it on the way into Mos Eisley was just bad CGI, especially because most of that shot had been redone and extended, but then I watched the original cut for the first time since I was six or seven. As it turned out, it was just Lucas leaving one of the worst effects in the original movie -- and really one of the few, if not the only legitimately bad one -- alone. You'd think he would have redone that one, but he didn't, despite redoing pretty much all of the stuff around it.

Edit: Misread your post. Still, there are a lot of movies these days with CGI effects that aren't up to par, just like back in the day, there were a lot of movies with model effects that weren't up to par. But I think we've finally hit a point where there's not much advantage either way as far as making machines look realistic. Explosions and living creatures, however, are still generally easier to make realistic with practical effects. Properly painted latex looks more like skin than CGI does, even with modern advancements in things like the way light passes through skin mostly doing away with the old porcelain doll problem.

Actually the only limitation to what CG can do these days is based on how much time and computing power you are willing to throw at the problem. Given enough of both you can make an entirely CGI film that would stand up to any eyeball test. Models, costuming, and makeup can do alot but have their own limitations as it takes hours to properly apply and remove latex to ensure it looks consistent from shot to shot, day to day, etc... With computer modeling it is as simple as reapplying a preconfigured morph to the model during rendering.

Each has their pros and cons, and each does some things better than the other, but I am not arguing that either is overall superior to the other. I just hate hearing a tool decried as detrimental to the industry and its products as a whole when it is but one persons opinion.

 

[Phuctifyno]

CGI has come a long way since its inception. And, generally speaking outside of those instances where effects do not measure up to the norm of the day, the only complaining I usually hear about the inclusion of CGI is from those who watch movies to dissect their flaws (every movie has flaws) rather than enjoy the story. I have met very few intelligent adult movie-goers that care or notice whether CGI was used in the film as long as the film itself entertained them. I have met plenty of "critics" who can't see the forest of the movie for the tree of CGI.

Yeah, I realize the majority of people don't care. That's part of my point though. It's not something that anybody really desires or gets excited about, except CGI artists and aficionados (...which may be a thing that exists, idunno). It's something that people generally just accept becasue they're not the ones making the movie. The studios don't do it because it looks better, they do it because it's quicker, easier, and cheaper. That would be fine if it didn't harm the films in any way, but I think it does for a sizeable portion of the audience.

It's about suspension of disbelief. Some people, like yourself, can apparently do it no matter what they're looking at. Power to ya. Some others, like myself, need to be met halfway by the film - it has to work a little to earn the suspension. That's the goal and magic of movies; to use illusion to help you believe unbelievable things. One doesn't have to try to be critical to be taken out of immersion by something that looks fake. I mean, what's the point of making a live-action movie if all the things that would make it special are just cartoons anyway?

And I don't think CGI has really advanced that much in the past 20 years; specifically in film. The video you linked below showcases how far the technology has grown, and how much an artist can excell, but you would almost never see something like that in a movie. The time and money wouldn't be worth it to the studios. I still think Jurassic Park has some of the best looking CGI of any film. Because it was so experimental at the time, they had to work their asses off to be absolutely certain it was as believable as possible in order for people to buy into it. They weren't sure at all if it would work, and they still mixed it up by using animatronics and costumes to ensure that your suspension of disbelief could be bought at another time, then relied on when the CGI did show up. Since then, with a few exceptions, I think the bar has actually dropped, specifically because it's become so widely accepted.

Can you honestly look at the following video and say for certain that it contains not a single frame of "real-life" footage without foreknowledge and without microanalyzing it?
http://player.vimeo.com/video/15630517
If you are honest with yourself then I doubt the answer is yes.

I cannot deny that that is some really impressive work by a very talented artist. It is, however, all in slow motion. Speed it up to real life speeds and see if it still holds up. Then, and only then, will I give you my cookie.

Me, I will continue enjoying movies that contain CGI as long as it doesn't detract from the story.

Same here. A good enough story can shine through any kind of bad special effect.

Spoiler: case in point

Case closed.

 

[Phuctifyno]

I can't put my finger on it. I LOVE sci-fi. I pretty much watch all and every sci-fi movies/series, play all sci-fi games and etc., but I just can't for the life of me stop disliking starwars.

That might be part of the issue right there. Star Wars isn't a sci-fi film, it just looks like one. Pure fantasy. And even if you like fantasy, the misrepresentation maybe caused some cognitive dissonance... it could happen. lol

there are some slick games set in the universe, though.
[small]looking at you, KotOR[/small]

Damn straight.

 

[Ken Sapp]

CGI has come a long way since its inception. And, generally speaking outside of those instances where effects do not measure up to the norm of the day, the only complaining I usually hear about the inclusion of CGI is from those who watch movies to dissect their flaws (every movie has flaws) rather than enjoy the story. I have met very few intelligent adult movie-goers that care or notice whether CGI was used in the film as long as the film itself entertained them. I have met plenty of "critics" who can't see the forest of the movie for the tree of CGI.

Yeah, I realize the majority of people don't care. That's part of my point though. It's not something that anybody really desires or gets excited about, except CGI artists and aficionados (...which may be a thing that exists, idunno). It's something that people generally just accept becasue they're not the ones making the movie. The studios don't do it because it looks better, they do it because it's quicker, easier, and cheaper. That would be fine if it didn't harm the films in any way, but I think it does for a sizeable portion of the audience.

It's about suspension of disbelief. Some people, like yourself, can apparently do it no matter what they're looking at. Power to ya. Some others, like myself, need to be met halfway by the film - it has to work a little to earn the suspension. That's the goal and magic of movies; to use illusion to help you believe unbelievable things. One doesn't have to try to be critical to be taken out of immersion by something that looks fake. I mean, what's the point of making a live-action movie if all the things that would make it special are just cartoons anyway?

And I don't think CGI has really advanced that much in the past 20 years; specifically in film. The video you linked below showcases how far the technology has grown, and how much an artist can excell, but you would almost never see something like that in a movie. The time and money wouldn't be worth it to the studios. I still think Jurassic Park has some of the best looking CGI of any film. Because it was so experimental at the time, they had to work their asses off to be absolutely certain it was as believable as possible in order for people to buy into it. They weren't sure at all if it would work, and they still mixed it up by using animatronics and costumes to ensure that your suspension of disbelief could be bought at another time, then relied on when the CGI did show up. Since then, with a few exceptions, I think the bar has actually dropped, specifically because it's become so widely accepted.

Can you honestly look at the following video and say for certain that it contains not a single frame of "real-life" footage without foreknowledge and without microanalyzing it?
http://player.vimeo.com/video/15630517
If you are honest with yourself then I doubt the answer is yes.

I cannot deny that that is some really impressive work by a very talented artist. It is, however, all in slow motion. Speed it up to real life speeds and see if it still holds up. Then, and only then, will I give you my cookie.

Me, I will continue enjoying movies that contain CGI as long as it doesn't detract from the story.

Same here. A good enough story can shine through any kind of bad special effect.

Spoiler: case in point

Case closed.

I disagree with you on how much the use of CGI detracts from films, and I expect that there is more CGI in the films released in the last decade than you realize, a lot of it of the quality shown in the commercial I linked. And I in my experience flawed CGI is more likely to be recognizable at slow speeds than at a more standard 29+ fpsthat we are used to from TV and film.

 

[Bad Jim]

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 disagree. There is nothing inherently wrong with CGI. Sure, there are old movies that had great effects without it and new movies that use it poorly, but the reverse comparison is also easy to make. Jurassic park, for instance, looks a lot better than One Million Years BC. There's nothing wrong with the special effects in Star Wars, but there is an incredible number of movies and TV shows that looked absolutely shit and that number has gone down since the invention of CGI.

Computers cannot perfectly imitate realistic light or movement

Whenever you have something in a scene that wasn't actually there when you filmed it, it will not have a shadow and the lighting will be wrong. This is true of CGI and everything else. If you have a puppet, some actions will be impossible to do well, such as running around in full view. If you have human actors in monster suits, they will be limited to actions a human can do, and when masquerading as something entirely different, will often move awkwardly and look like something that should be shot to end its suffering, not to save the world.

No technique is perfect, but CGI has the advantage that it is almost always possible to make something passable in CGI. It's often doing something that was either done badly or not at all before CGI. Directors always have the option of using other techniques as well.

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!!!!!

That is probably one of the easiest things to do well in CGI. It's an entirely artificial construct, with artificial things flying around in it. You can do whole scenes in CGI, which allows you to get convincing lighting by raytracing it. Motion is simple newtonian physics, which will look a lot more convincing than using physical models that weigh a lot less than real spacecraft. You can simulate the explosion pretty accurately. 3D modelling is a lot easier, because you can copy/paste tiny details that would take forever to make with physical models.

You could not have picked a worse example of something "impossible to CGI" if you tried.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Of course not. They're good films (they're well before my time too, there's no nostalgia here either), and a future director could learn a lot from them, but of course it's not a necessity. People can watch whatever the hell they like, but I don't especially like the notion that people only like Star Wars and other classics out of mainly nostalgia, it seems a touch insulting to their intelligence.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

As long as we're dreaming I'd like a magical flying marshmallow to take me to Neverland.

 

[Phuctifyno]

circumcised!

hmmm... From everything you've said, I feel like it'll be just about impossible to explain what I mean, because you're regarding the word "motion" in a different way than I am. But respectfully, I'll try.

Yes, a CGI figure is capable of much more types of motion than a puppet; in fact, literally anything the animator can dream up. That's the problem though, because the program is limited by the programmer. The animator can synthesize as many movements as they can observe and recreate, but there are (micro)movements in real life that are beyond our control and only on the fringe of our abilities to consciously perceive.

It's like the difference between setting a glass of water on a table and holding it in your hand. On the table, the water can become perfectly still (relatively speaking), because its method of being held up is mechanical. In your hand, it will never be as perfectly still as on the table because there are random elements affecting your hand that cause it to shake ever so slighty. These micro-motions exist everywhere and are barely noticeable, and on film, help your subconscious recognize reality. An animator can do his/her best to imitate it, but such a high volume of randomness is humanly impossible to duplicate, more so if you're working with limited time and resources (where you'd be likely to cut corners).

You know, chaos stuff...

This includes the way light interacts with physical objects and the camera.

When I say that no cinematic space battle looks better than the one in ROTJ, it's the best possible example because of the reasons you mentioned as cause for disagreement. I've seen tons of CGI space battles (prequels included) with way more complicated motions and piled-on details, and I still think none measure up - therefore I would hope that their similarities help isolate the difference I'm trying to pinpoint. Computers can simulate all of the physics extremely well, just as the models moving in front of a green screen are also simulating them. The way that the objects move through space is not the issue. The way that light interacts with the model is something that your brain immediately picks up as real (regardless of how fake the spinning or diving or crashing may look); you know instantly that it is something you could physically touch. Animated objects can't do this because the animator is incapable of replicating motion on the scale required to trick your subconscious.

In my discussion with Ken Sapp, it occurred to me that something not being taken into consideration is the sensitivity of one's eyes to the difference between synthesized motion and the real thing. I'm beginning to think that some people can see it while some can't. I often notice CGI in films that other people don't. I've never been tricked by CGI to think something animated was real (though I'll admit the opposite has happened a couple of times - usually from slow motion, and more often with things being shot digitally). I also disagree when I hear people say that realistic CGI humans fall into the uncanny valley because they have dead eyes; the eyes look fine to me, it's the way the hair and mouths move that throw things off.

Ultimately, it's something that can't be perfectly described, but sensed. I get that it doesn't bother a lot of people. It doesn't even bother me all that much. I just very, very much prefer the real deal. And I know I'm not alone: http://www.imdb.com/news/ni44366254/ ...if anyone out there understands, please help this make money.

 

[Bad Jim]

When I say that no cinematic space battle looks better than the one in ROTJ, it's the best possible example because of the reasons you mentioned as cause for disagreement. I've seen tons of CGI space battles (prequels included) with way more complicated motions and piled-on details, and I still think none measure up - therefore I would hope that their similarities help isolate the difference I'm trying to pinpoint. Computers can simulate all of the physics extremely well, just as the models moving in front of a green screen are also simulating them. The way that the objects move through space is not the issue. The way that light interacts with the model is something that your brain immediately picks up as real (regardless of how fake the spinning or diving or crashing may look); you know instantly that it is something you could physically touch. Animated objects can't do this because the animator is incapable of replicating motion on the scale required to trick your subconscious.

Lighting? The lighting in this clip here?


Watch carefully as they blow the core up at 7:18 - 7:19. Despite a substantial explosion, the chamber walls do not light up at all, nor does the tunnel they escape into. It's quite clear that the explosion has been superimposed, and this is the most significant explosion in the whole movie.

I just very, very much prefer the real deal.

But . . it's not the real deal. It's chroma keying. It's just as fake as CGI. The edges never look quite right.

 

[Austin Howe]

It'd be fucking excellent if no one watched Star Wars at least until they wanted to investigate classical hero mythology and five-act structure. Thing is: we don't need any more of that.

 

[MorganL4]

t and the effects/acting is really bad.

Umm dude...... Wow.... Um wow.....

Okay, First

Star Wars Episode IV:

Star Wars won six Oscars at the 50th Academy Awards, including Best Art Direction, which went to John Barry, Norman Reynolds, Leslie Dilley and Roger Christian. Best Costume Design was awarded to John Mollo; Best Film Editing went to Paul Hirsch, Marcia Lucas and Richard Chew; John Stears, John Dykstra, Richard Edlund, Grant McCune and Robert Blalack all received awards for Best Visual Effects. John Williams was awarded his third Oscar for Best Original Score; the Best Sound went to Don MacDougall, Ray West, Bob Minkler and Derek Ball; and a Special Achievement for Sound Effects Editing went to Ben Burtt.


Additional nominations included Alec Guinness for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, George Lucas for Best Original Screenplay, Best Director.

Star Wars Episode V:

At the Academy Awards in 1981, The Empire Strikes Back won the Oscar for Best Sound Mixing, which was awarded to Bill Varney, Steve Maslow, Greg Landaker, and Peter Sutton.[40] In addition, this film received the Special Achievement Academy Award for Visual Effects that was awarded to Brian Johnson, Richard Edlund, Dennis Muren, and Bruce Nicholson. Composer John Williams was also nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Score, for The Empire Strikes Back, and a team from this film was nominated for the Oscar for Best Production Design: Norman Reynolds, Leslie Dilley, Harry Lange, Alan Tomkins, and Michael Ford.[41]


Star Wars Episode VI:

At the 56th Academy Awards in 1984, Richard Edlund, Dennis Muren, Ken Ralston, and Phil Tippett received the "Special Achievement Award for Visual Effects." Norman Reynolds, Fred Hole, James L. Schoppe, and Michael Ford were nominated for "Best Art Direction/Set Decoration". Ben Burtt received a nomination for "Best Sound Effects Editing". John Williams received the nomination for "Best Music, Original Score". Burtt, Gary Summers, Randy Thom and Tony Dawe all received the nominations for "Best Sound"


So, umm Yeah...... Just because movies like The Avengers have better effects in 2012 does not mean that a movie from 1981 had bad effects.....

When 3 movies win 3 academy awards for visual effects.... That argument goes out the window... Also Alec Guiness got a nomination for best supporting actor in the prequel to Empire.... So, yes you need to watch them, and learn about their history if you want to become a director.

Plain and Simple..... Also there is this movie called "Citizen Kain"..... kinda old, but you should watch it. If you want to be a director, you don't really have a choice in the matter.

 

[DaWaffledude]

No, they don't have to.

Things like Star Wars were good because they were different, and new. If a director wants his/her film to be as succesful as Star Wars, then sucking up to to classics is the worst possible thing they could do.