Why The Prequel Trilogy was a Good Thing

George Lucas basically sacrificed the prequel trilogy in the name of digital filmmaking. Shooting with the Cinealtas. On-set motion capture. Fully CGI characters. Digital backlot environments (overdone, yes).

Wooden dialogue and rushed plotting aside, Lucas didn't let anyone else direct the films because, and here's what sad (very sad), the stories weren't the point. Anyone who tried to make a legitimate story out of the prequels would have only interfered with George's true aim: ushering in a new age of digital cinema.

The Star Wars films did this single-handedly. No Jar-Jar, no Gollum. No Sony F3 Cinealta, no James Cameron 3D rigs. You get the picture. The prequels are bad to the point that they make you question your own sense of taste and moral compass. Unless you look at them only as what they are: science experiments.

Granted, Lucas gave it his all on Episode III, which is still rated Fresh on RT and Metacritic (so take that, motherfuckers), going so far as to enlist Tom Stoppard on dialogue and Steven Spielberg on 2nd Unit. But by that point, Lucas had accomplished what he set out to do: allowing films to use a completely digital workflow.

So, now with effects technology having broken down all barriers (cloth, fur, hair, skin, water, fire, you name it) and possessing the ability to make ultra-realistic CGI planes or Iron man suits or whatever, George can make Red Tails or Koyaanqatsi 4 or whatever. It took tearing his Star Wars universe in two, literally, and alienating a major swath of fans, but now Lucas can do anything he wants.

Yeah, I'm pissed about the original trilogy's original versions being only available on VHS or as a bonus on the limited edition DVDs. I'm pissed that Lucas makes Vader moo at the two most important moments of his life. But whatever. Those movies are still a part of me. Watching the Special Edition in theaters with my family. Playing Super Star Wars on Saturday morning. Reading Tag & Bink, and the New Jedi Order trilogy. This is what we do.

So, either go see Red Tails, or Phantom 3D, or fucking not at all. It doesn't matter. The landscape has been changed forever. 48 frames per second, that's next. Feature films shot on iPhones and 5Ds. VFX of the same caliber on film, television and gaming. You have one man to thank for that. Okay, several. Several hundred in fact, but the point is Lucas played a big hand in that.

As for myself, I'm gonna go check out Red Tails. I'm anxious to see what a Lucasfilm production looks like without Indy or Jedi. Peace out, and stop hatin'. Jeez.

The Next New Level

Cameron is a certified genius, or is at least smart enough to work with the right geniuses. And he's right about the higher framerate being the next step. If you've ever watched the 120 Hz mode that some HDTVs display, you can see a big difference in sports or movies.

I haven't seen Showscan or any other high framerate formats, but I can imagine how vivid it'd be on the big screen. 24 fps is the bare minimum for the illusion of motion, and the earliest filmmakers had to make do. But in this digital age, we could and should do better.

A tentpole release like Avatar, or Spider-Man or Disney's Pirates, would see its effects budget skyrocket, more than doubling its render time and processing needs from an increase from 24 fps to 48 or 60 fps. Movies released in 3-D already have a substantial cost added to them for re-rendering the effects for both eyes.

However, if more special effects, not visual effects, were captured in camera, then the increase in framerate would be a non-issue. By now, matte painting, rear projection, miniatures, puppetry, animatronics, and make-up are becoming lost arts, but would become necessities and revitalized in a 48/60 fps production.

Before Pandora's digital forests, Peter Jackson realized King Kong's Skull Island through big-a-tures. Independence Day was a perfect melding of digital and model work, as were Jackson's Lord of the Rings series. And the T-Rex attack in Jurassic Park wouldn't have been as visceral or withstood the test of time if not for Stan Winston's work.

So, to realize a high-def, high-framerate feature in 3-D, and to maintain current costs in effects, concessions would be needed. 2000 effect shots in 24 fps would cost the same as 1000 shots in 48 fps, or 800 shots in 60 fps. And what happens next?

Davy Jones becomes KNB makeup or Henson Shop animatronics? Worked for Predator. Worked for Ninja Turtles. Iron Man and War Machine are 100% Stan Winston suits instead of a shot or two? Worked for Robocop. More in-camera explosions? More live-action footage and plates? Why not? What better way to reproduce photorealism than to use photographic actuality?

What better way to recapture the wonder of cinema? Without the Pace-Cameron Fusion camera to ground Avatar's live-action sequences, the film might have lost its moorings visually. There is still room for magicianship in cinema, and not just at the keyboard. And maybe the new next level is a very familiar one instead.