Quickies from a Galaxy Far Far Away 374
In celebration of the release of AotC, here are a bunch of random SW stories
that have fluttered through our bin:
Tim Drage has made a
Lego Star Wars movie,
POds sent us a fan film
Fan Film
(quicktime. Bah).
Here is a comic to
share and enjoy.
iamchaos noted that the next Matrix Trailer
will be showing with Clones.
nellardo sent in a fine tribute to darth maul.
Anyone want a Star Wars Axe?
Zack sent us a great collection of
SW Characters you won't see as much
as you might want to.
wiredog sent us some spoilers, the Skywalker family tree
and how Anakin becomes Vader.
peter_gzowski sent in an
essay by Ebert
where he gives it 2 of 4 stars, and discusses the digital filming.
Finally ant sent us a bizarre tale
of some guys who got the brilliant idea to build a
life-size Millenium Falcon.
So there it is folks. I have tickets for a 12:01 showing in Ann Arbor and I'll
be getting in line in just a few short hours.
Ebert is right (Score:3, Interesting)
Just back from the theatre... (Score:5, Interesting)
I went in with an open mind, not really knowing what to expect, just hoping it was going to be better than Phantom. I personally think it has well outdone Phantom. It is much deeper, more emotive, and certainly darker. I really enjoyed this movie, and overall I think the audience did too, especially Yoda's scene - you'll know it when you see it
Re:I felt a tremor in the force... (Score:3, Interesting)
Even the other pro sports like American Football, Baseball, Basketball, and Hockey have their rabid fans, but nothing like the stereotypical rioting mobs that we associate with British Soccer. In fact, as those sports become more and more corporate, they become less and less popular.
Starwars is the closest thing we have to that kind of draw. LOTR came close, but even with the negative impression a lot of fans left Episode 1 with, I haven't seen the kind of rabid dedication and fandom that Episode 2 is generating anywhere else.
Quick Review from New Zealand (Score:5, Interesting)
Over the years, I think Lucas may have lost touch a little bit with his fan base, but AotC is a step in the right direction. Its hard to go into any details without spoiling (which i promised myself i would not do) so forgive me if I skimp out in those areas
Lucas makes use of two main plots, regarding anakin and obi-wan (sp?) now the former plot in my opinion, endulges a little too much in the realms of honest idealism, and can get cheesy at times, but the remaining portions, along with the later plot, definitely make up for it. (Yoda. need i say more?)
Halfway through the movie I must admit I was quite skeptical, as I had already extrapolated every action to the end. However, the clues did not reveal all, to the point that at the end I was left stunned, contemplating what was going to happen next, what I missed, and how long until I could see it again.
Strong the force in this one is.
-John
disclaimer: as it is 3:21am and I only had 5 hours of sleep in the last 40, please excuse any spelling, errors, or lack of interes... oh screw it - flame away
Well if Ebert is wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Then list five memorable lines from Phantom Menace.
Then list five lines from A New Hope.
"Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope."
"That's no moon! It's a space station."
"When I left you, I was but the learner; now I am the master."
"Only the master of evil, Darth."
"He doesn't like you."
"I'm sorry."
"I don't like you either. You just watch yourself. We're wanted men. I have the death sentence on twelve systems."
"I'll be careful."
"You'll be DEAD!"
Do you think that Attack of the Clones will be as basically enjoyable? I don't think so. At least we get to see some Mandalorians. I'm going to wait. Maybe catch a matinee.
Personally I want to see the Star Wars where Jar-Jar dies on every page.
Problems with viewing on a Digital Projector... (Score:2, Interesting)
Positives: Incredibly sharp, bright picture (like Ebert says)
Negatives: Action scenes blur when things move fast. This really sucks (hey, Spiderman seemed to, too!). Also, we both had headaches afterwards.
Basically, we have technology here that's extremely expensive that's NOT Good Enough yet being pushed by the greatest toy seller ever, George Lucas. Where in the galaxy can we hide?
Re:Just back from the theatre... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Matrix was self-contained, even though it was always planned as part 1 of a trilogy.
Maybe it's for the same reasons that Peter Jackson gets away with Fellowship . But then, that's always been known to be part 1 of 3 (and, even having said that, it was a far better movie than Episode 1).
Hrrm.
Re:Just back from the theatre... (Score:3, Interesting)
Because that's what it is.
The original was only self-contained because Lucas had no idea if it would even make money. ALL the other films are dependent on one another, and making the prequels changes the nature of Star Wars as a stand-alone film. Phantom Menace (whatever you think of it) was not just setting the stage for Episode II, but for all six films. Lots of backstory to be established, and they still had to start in the middle.
If they start the prequels with the Republic already fallen and everything already dark and spooky-poo, there's no sense of transition.
Re:Ebert is right (Score:5, Interesting)
They never stopped doing that. If you watch the documentary for Jurassic Park (it's on the DVD), you'll see that veteran animator Phil Tippett and his crew had a very hard time making the transition from "go-motion" animation to working with a keyboard to make CGI dinosaurs. So the special effects crew built a number of model dinosaurs that were tied into the computer, and the animators moved them by hand, just like they did with stop-motion, and the movements were recorded and smoothed out by the computer. The technique, ultimately, didn't change much at all.
One of the animators even complained that "people think that with computers, we just have a keyboard and press C for creature and D for dinosaur, and never do any hands-on work, which is just wrong."
Even TPM featured a lot more miniatures work than is apparent in a film. It's really nerdy of me, but I've gotten a bit of pleasure out of it when I was watching TPM with an anti-CGI fellow, and when he sneered "that looks so fake" at one particular part, pointed out to him that it wasn't CGI, but a miniature. Oops, now it looks real after all!
My favorite bit is people always yapping about the actors opposite Jar Jar (yeah, I know, I know) "looking over his head" or "into space," when in fact there was an actor in a Jar Jar suit right there in the scene with them, and was replaced later.
Certainly, some CGI effects look better than others, and I've seen enough piss-poor CGI Rorscharch blots to last me the rest of my life -- but this hating CGI "just because" just sort of puzzles me.
That said, I think Ray Harryhausen is to be revered as the pioneer that he was, but stop-motion, by today's standards, looks like complete ass. I think it's a testament to how spoiled we are as moviegoers that we can carp and gripe about special effects that look more realistic than anything that's ever been in the movies before -- no matte lines, no mismatched colors, etc. Like any effect, when it's done well, it's done well. When it sucks, it sucks.
Re:Roger Ebert and Digital Media (Score:3, Interesting)
As for digital cinema, I belive the theater-grade DLP systems are 2048x1536. No, this may not be as much resolution as you can pull out of a 35mm slide, but the flip side is that the chroma values can be insured to be perfect (virtually never true with film), you'll get a better black level then you get with traditional film projection, and the image won't degrade with repeated showings. That 35mm film may be wonderfully crisp and clear the first showing. It won't be by the 500th showing.
Ebert is spewing smoke. He admits that a digital projection of AotC is better than the film, but attempts to justify it by saying that it's because the film was shot digitally. Virtually any movie with special effects goes through a digital pass (or at least elements of the film do) nowadays. If it really was a "pure digital" issue then he should do a great deal more complaining about the fuzziness of any SFX shots in traditional filming. He doesn't. And while it's a stretch to say "so he's wrong", I really do suspect that digital cinema will _vastly_ improve the quality of the movie experience, contrary to what celluloid buffs claim.
Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course they do. They're acting in front of a blue (or green) screen with no sets and minimal props, and interacting with some piece of masking tape that tells them where to look substituting for the alien that will be added digitally later.
It takes a very good actor to pull off a performance in those circumstances.
(Actually TPM isn't quite that bad in the above regard -- see the "Making Of" documentary on the second disc of the DVD -- but AOTC may well have been.)
Re:And here's another one... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Quickys : Cringes from Australia : Minimal Spoi (Score:2, Interesting)
The fireplace scene was ugh! But then, the acting of Anakin was stilted and forced IMO. That said, I think a better actor would have made the whole movie that much better, but what we got is okay if it dosent get on your nerves particularly.
As for Parsecs, thats why Star Trek has its own bogolingo to describe things. I'd prefer the use of "parsec" in a flawed manner, than saying "Tatooine seems to be within the 10 megapascalcomfrobulator range my powerconduitquadlithiummidichlorean com badge can transethermit."
As for accuracy, well, the whole series suffers from plot holes. I had a debate about the old line from Ep4 from Obi Wan "I thought I could teach your father as well as Yoda taught me. I was wrong." Now, a friend argued with me that maybe Yoda took over Obi Wan's training and completed it, between 1 and 2. But no, I think Obi became a Jedi at the end of 1 when he took Anankin as his apprentice. Therefore Yoda was never involved, and there is an inconsistency.
Now everyone can start on all the inconsistencies Ep2 bring in. But I still mostly enjoyed it.
AT..
Re:Roger Ebert and Digital Media (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. A pristine 70mm print will blow away digital projection. It will blow away 35mm projection too. Unfortunately, 99% of us never get to see a movie that way. The actual, day-to-day quality of digital projection is better than the actual, day-to-day quality of 35mm projection. Since theaters and studios are not going to upgrade to 70mm for all movies, digital is good.