George Lucas Struggles to Reinvent Himself 370
GuyMannDude writes "Wired has a lengthy article about what lies ahead for George Lucas. Originally a member of a maverick group of young filmmakers who were at odds with the thinking and methods of the major studios, he has now become the most financially successful director in history by marketing the ultimate popcorn fodder. With the Star Wars saga ending, Lucas now struggles with how to reinvent himself." I imagine it will be hard to get away from Star Wars, given that he's producing television shows set in the fictional universe.
Re:Name something good by Lucas (Score:5, Informative)
Innovation (Score:5, Informative)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:0, Informative)
Re:More Sequels (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA: (Score:3, Informative)
He could always reinvent his movies.
Looks like you'll get your wish! Greedo firing first in 3D! Maybe the new version will have Solo dodging the shot in Matrix-esque bullet time!
GMD
Re:Name something good by Lucas (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bring back Indy!! (Score:4, Informative)
Imaginative Work (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Details (Score:5, Informative)
The *details* are the zillion budget items for a movie: sets, lighting, sound, special effects, costumes, makeup, etc etc etc. They're manpower-intensive, use specialized gear, and perfection in these crafts only comes with experience. Otherwise, the audience will notice.
Every one of the 200 names that go zinging past at a movie's end represents a category of details important enough that the show hired a specialist. Small, indy films cut corners on these, but that just means people try to do several jobs at once, and at some point the audience will start to notice.
So, if you wanna do things right, you hire some help. Once you grow beyond a team of a few people, start planning a la Brooks' mythical man-month, where each sixth person needs a manager. That gets fun, because the boss role is split between some guy too distracted to care about half of the details (the director) and people hired to handle these details as transparently as possible. Add in accountants and schedulers and people to round up the crafts needed or get bids for the work being done, etc. Even on a good day, it really starts to look like a wierdass engineering project by the time you're done. Once costs stretch the budget (and they will, whether you're doing Titanic or a documentary) throw in someone obsessed with budget (producer). If you're sadistic, imagine the worst-case of the conflict between director and producer.
Then, do everything on insane interdependent timelines: sets can take weeks to assemble, and hours to touch up before filming. Makeup often starts at 4am, there's a continual flow of 'plan shot, make adjustments to fit plan, shoot, repeat', so that actors are sometimes only onstage for a few hours total spaced over as much as a 16-hour day, and in addition to the crafts, security, catering, medics, etc. are all needed to help all these people throughout that long day. Add external factors (weather, lost gear, changes in story, disappearing cast members).
The end result is fairly inefficient, with dozens of people waiting for their next task, but billing for the whole day. Spending rates soar, but each person you remove causes tiny gaps and mistakes or slows things down immensely. A director pausing to review a shot also means everyone else is pausing to wait for him. But not pausing could mean rebuilding the set, flying actors back in, etc. when a shot is deemed unworkable...
I don't see gadgets *solving* a lot of this. And as they do, new complications are introduced. For example, DV allows better immediate-review capability than film. That saves $$$loads$$$ on film, but increases the chance for delays. Sound gear gets better, but audience expectations increase. Special effects are a never-ending race with audience expectations, too.