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.
Peter Gzowski? (Score:2)
Re:From the links (Score:3, Funny)
>
>Did I miss something? I could have sworn no 19 yr old has had to choose between being a Jedi and boinking Nat Portman.
Probably not. So we really don't know what the right choice would be in Anakin's situation.
We can, however, say with some certainty that anyone who's ever had to choose between posting on Slashdot and boinking Natalie Portman, either (a) chose the hot grits, or (b) chose poorly.
Fan Film (Score:5, Informative)
Just a warning.
Re:Lego Movie (Score:2)
And here's another one... (Score:5, Funny)
Star Wars in ascii... Maybe it's a geek thing?
Re:And here's another one... (Score:3, Funny)
Here [blinkenlights.nl]'s the same over telnet. Without doubt a geek thing. :-)
Re:And here's another one... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And here's another one... (Score:3, Funny)
How about Star Wars in ASCII over telnet being discussed over Slashdot.
Links to mirrors (Score:2, Funny)
I felt a tremor in the force... (Score:5, Funny)
Luke: What is it, Ben?
Obi-wan: Something horrible. It's as if thousands of businesses were running along, being productive, and were suddenly silenced.
Re:I felt a tremor in the force... (Score:2)
At least they don't have to worry about Scottish fans calling in sick; we failed to qualify again, despite doing pretty well to begin with. Pity we couldn't beat those giants of the game, Lithuania *sigh*.
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.
Re:Being productive? (Score:2)
Who's NOT going to see it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not. Not until it's released on DVD or I get confirmation from a reliable source (friend whose opinion I trust) that it isn't a bag-o-"lets sell some merchandise".
Maybe I'm too cynical... NAH!
Re:Who's NOT going to see it? (Score:2)
Not until it's released on DVD
I heard on the radio that they've been selling AotC DVDs in Malaysia for $3. Apparently it's like going to NYC and buying something from the back of some guy's truck, except over there they're poor and can't afford the truck.
Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, I'm still going to go see the movie. Rather than compare it to any of the previous movies, I will attempt to simply compare it to itself. Hopefully, by doing that, I will enjoy the movie much more than anyone who expects a papal blessing upon this film.
See you guys at the theatre at 12:01!
Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:2)
I waited a day too long for 12:01 tickets, so I'll probably just go see it over the weekend. It's entertainment, not life, not the end of the world, and certainly not the greatest thing to ever exist.
Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:2)
You'd be wrong. Even the officially sanctioned novels feature such gems as Ikrit, the Jedi Master [212.168.23.160] bunny rabbit [ffurg.com]. Even Lucas hasn't dreamed up something that stupid (yet).
And most fanfics are based on people's Star Wars roleplaying game characters, who are named things like Darth Nightstalker Darkshadow, and have a double-bladed lightsaber like Darth Maul's, only much longer, and have been genetically engineered by secret Imperial training to be a hit with the ladies and a dynamo in the sack.
Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:2)
Guess you didn't like Darth Wuggles then?
Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:5, Funny)
I think it will be just as good as itself, if not better!
Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:3, Insightful)
My wife and I were watching Star Wars the other night when it came on cable and I noticed that there were far more gun fights than TPM and the action scenes were much shorter. The pod scene in TPM was way too long...maybe.
People will still beat AOTC to hell because it just isn't perfect. Maybe fans need to lower their expectations a little and just enjoy the movie for what it is. Then again, I probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:2)
Apart from being a touch too long, TPM is a fairly decent film that sets the stage for 5 more films.
Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:2)
No shit. What's up with Natalie Portman falling for Anakin when she can have a guy with a tongue that can do that?
(Although, now that I think about it, both alternatives are pretty sick at the time of TPM. Lucas musta been on some weird shit when he wrote that script.)
Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:5, Insightful)
NO! We should NOT lower our expectations! It's precisely this type of thinking that lets the studios crank out POS after POS with [insert current flavor of the month here] in the title role.
I can't tell you how many times I've had this conversation with one of my friends in the industry:
Studios would love nothing more than for us to keep lowering and lowering our expectations, because it lets them focus on what they really care about: selling merchandise, and "synergy" with advertising tie-ins.
There was a time when movies were considered an art form, and studios were run by creative people who wanted to tell a story, or make a statement. Now, movies are just another excuse to sell crap, feature the actors who have been capriciously identified by Hollywood as "up and coming" (Vin Diesel? Please.) and push more and more product. Creative people are a necessary evil, and we are constantly over ruled by somebody's cousin, whose MBA from Harvard somehow qualifies him to make creative decisions about story structure. News flash: studios are run by multi-national conglomerates, and they can't WAIT for us to lower our expectations and give them our money.
Honestly, what's it going to take for us to say "enough?" Sure, Watchmen may get made, but they'll fuck it up. They're already trying to make Sandman, and I know first hand that the studio wants it to be an action movie. Sandman. Action Movie. Oh, sure, that makes sense. Let's just lower our expectations and go enjoy it.
If I go to enjoy AToC for "What it is," I may as well stay home and watch commercials for Burger King tie-ins and action figures.
I'd write more, but I have to go stand in line, and my Chewbacca suit is already itchin' my ass.
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.
Re:Well if Ebert is wrong (Score:2)
Re:Well if Ebert is wrong (Score:2)
By that measurement, "Spinal Tap" wins hands down.
These go to eleven.
There's such a fine line between stupid and ... clever.
You can't really dust for vomit.
OK, I'll stop now before I get too far off-topic.
Moderator: Too late. (-1 Off-topic.)
Re:Well if Ebert is wrong (Score:2)
"How can I leave this behind"
Re:Well if Ebert is wrong (Score:2)
Re:1) (Score:2)
Re:Well if Ebert is wrong (Score:2)
You missed the rest of the line:
"What's our vector, Victor?"
Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh... personally I recall loving the movies when I was a kid, loving them when I was a young teen, but when I watched them in my early 20's I kinda wondered why I thought it was so good. The acting is very stilted with a few notable exceptions, there are huge gaps in the storyline, and at points it just seems very disjointed.
Sure, there's still bits where brilliance shines through, but by and large Star Wars is a B movie. What it did do was usher in a new era of special effects, changed the general public's view of science fiction movies, and further helped to create the phenomenon now known as blockbuster movies.
Personally, I long ago lost respect for Lucas as a film maker. I'm going to wind up seeing AotC this weekend (I hadn't planned to, but some friends are going, so my wife and I are herding along), but my expectations for it are rather whacked - I expect to be disappointed.
Why? Because everytime I watch one of the Star Wars movies I once again discover that it doesn't hold up to my dim childhood memories of "The Best Movie EVER!". And while that may be an unrealistic benchmark, it's still what I, and many others, keep hoping for from Lucas.
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.)
Anakin does the Queen (comic) (Score:4, Funny)
It starts here...
Please fix "family tree" link... (Score:2)
Skywalker Family Tree (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,52408
Re:Skywalker Family Tree (Score:2, Funny)
Some reviews (Score:5, Informative)
"There is not one line in this movie that you can quote with any pleasure. It is the most banal script I have ever read," raves Roger Ebert of Ebert and Roeper.
David Ansen of Newseek enthuses,"Lucas's enterprise has long since passed out of the arena of mere entertainment and into the realm of pure faith. You're either a true believer or an agnostic. To the former, its value is beyond debate, and all criticism a form of heresy. Which leaves guys like me doing the Devil's work. Let the hate mail commence...
Says John Anderson of Newsday, "...only those audiences already up to their necks in "Star Wars" ephemera could possibly care about the actual plot points on which the latest installment rests...
Intones Mark Caro of the Chicago Tribune, "Now Anakin is a headstrong, moody 19-year-old played with doleful looks and a curling lip by Hayden Christensen, and he's still barely a person. He speaks in topic sentences, and what they say is this: 'I like to take risks. I love Padme (Natalie Portman). I'm ready to be a Jedi knight. I resent that Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) still bosses me around. I love Padme. I'm frustrated that I'm so strong, yet I can't protect my mom.' For such a visually oriented filmmaker, Lucas commits an unpardonable sin: He tells instead of shows... Lucas' tin ear for dialogue doesn't help. Padme to Anakin: 'I've been dying a little bit each day since you came back into my life.' Oh, ick.!!!!!!!"
Raves Steven Rea in the Philadelphia Inquirer, "This thing will have your mind glazed over faster than a glob of dough in a Krispy Kreme plant... 'Clones' makes the Frodo-speak of 'Lord of the Rings' sound like Noel Coward."
And, last but not least, Michael Atkinson of the Village Voice says, "Jango serves as the template for a covert army of obedient, disposable, Asian- featured clones. The backlash against the last film's racist stereotypes apparently never reached Skywalker Ranch... Labeling a villain 'Sidious' is one thing, but calling a minor character 'Elan Sleazebaggano' is another achievement entirely... There is an odd cognitive dissonance at work between the obvious ingenuity dedicated to the film's visual details -- alien anatomies, industrial machinery, technological minutiae -- and the retarded intelligence quotient evident in its content... Lucas has in fact come closer than anyone could desire to the cheap, graceless, hackneyed sci-fi serials of the '30s and '40s. Predictably, the screenplay would make Buster Crabbe call for a rewrite... This is hardly an epic (a word that implies moral, human, and social weight). It's a marathon of irrelevant preadolescent dreaming... As the nationwide sidewalk camp-outs come to their climax, the maniacal wwwooooooos siren through the theater (even at the Lucasfilm Ltd. logo), and virtually every adult I know admits to a publicity-hammered submission, it's easy to feel like 1984's Winston Smith struggling with 2 + 2 = 5. Why should this invasion of self-ratifying, trans-marketed mythopoeia -- so electrifying and meaningful to so many -- be so inarguably empty and inconsequential? Attack of the Clones is a golden calf, worshiped not out of primitive fear but populist groupthink."
Re:Some reviews (Score:2, Funny)
The highlight is:
Re:Some reviews (Score:2, Funny)
along with the shadowy and superbly named Darth Sidious. (Who else? Darth Nuendo? Darth Vasion? Darth Tergalactic-Warfare?)
Re:Some reviews (Score:2)
Re:Some reviews (Score:2)
What? None of those were reviews of Spider-Man...
Re:Some reviews (Score:2)
Re:Some reviews (Score:2)
Exactly! These guys go and watch movies for a living. How is their tastes in movies going to compare to someone what wants to see them for fun?
My stupid theatre (Score:2)
The tickets have "Wednesday, 12:01 am" printed on them- but thats suposed to be either wednesday 11:59 or Thursday 12:01 am - all wekk I was expecting to see it today. Grrrrrrr
Re:My stupid theatre (Score:2)
Re:My stupid theatre (Score:2)
It kind of bugged me but I am still stoked
The funny thing is, Im not a star wars fan -- I just wanna see DLP!
Tnx for the link btw
ahem (Score:2, Funny)
I HAVE TICKETS AT 12:01
I HAVE TICKETS AT 12:01
I HAVE TICKETS AT 12:01
psst...
I HAVE TICKETS AT 12:01!!!
and you don't.
Re:ahem (Score:2)
Re:ahem (Score:2)
And that would be 12:01 Eastern, not 12:01 in that later time zone that contains Michigan.
So Nyah Nyah Nyah!
--mandi
Re:ahem (Score:3, Informative)
Since Ann Arbor is in the large portion of Michigan which is in the Easter Time Zone, Taco's going to be watching it at the same time as you are...
Re:ahem (Score:2)
No, I have tickets for an advance screening at 21:00. In GMT+1, so I get to see it 9 hours 1 minute before CmdrTaco in Ann Arbor. </gloat>
Ebert is right (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Shoulda been: "RETURN OF THE QUICKIES!!!" (Score:2)
Glad to see quickies return. Keep 'em coming. It's been *AT LEAST* a year since the last one. =P
Slurping Down the MPAA-Sanctioned Bile (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slurping Down the MPAA-Sanctioned Bile (Score:2)
And on the first day, too. What clearer way to send the message that you don't care about the content, that you don't give a damn about reviews (professional or peer), but that you've been bought by the trailers and the advertising, that your money is already in the bank. It sends the signal that the MPAA should be able to expect and demand our money.
Not that Cmdr Taco cares. Hey, man, he's just one guy going to watch a movie, right? I mean, what can one guy do? If he didn't buy those tickets, someone else would, right? And the movie would suck if he waited two weeks to see it, right? Right?
Re:Slurping Down the MPAA-Sanctioned Bile (Score:2)
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: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.
Matrix trailers on Entertainment Tonight (Score:2)
Matrix Breaking News link [warnerbros.com]
bbh
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
The Next Episode, Sounds Like Snoop Dogg (Score:3, Funny)
So it might not be the best. But I am going see it because it brings back memories of plastic lightsabers leaving welts and heated discussions on why Han Solo(reference to onanism?) was cooler than Luke Skywalker(latent homo?) and I enjoy the series(not the ewoks, animated hairballs).
Who hasn't tried the old Jedi Mind Trick on their parents?
So as much as we all bitch and whine about it we are all going to see it. And many will download it, though the theater with dolby will be the choice for most of us, no immersion at home, I dont care how big your screen is.
I am bringing a date in case it gets boring... But she was born after star wars was released. So, I am gonna have to tone down the geekiness and supress my knowledge of the Jedi. And if I can't use the force on her there is always the old hole in the popcorn tub and unzipped pants trick"This isn't the jolly time kernels your looking for"
Lighten up people. I think we all need to get out more often.
Building your own Falcon (Score:2, Funny)
Man, I love the Onion.
I've seen part of it (Score:2)
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?
Washington Post Pans It (Score:3, Informative)
I'll take that with a grain of salt. (Score:2)
Re:I'll take that with a grain of salt. (Score:2)
When there's no "there" there, you have to make your own entertainment. You cannot delve into a once-river that is now only a muddy trickle without bringing up some dirt. Given what he had to work with, the reviewer did a masterful job...
The best part... (Score:2)
The best part... of Ebert's review.
You can harp all day about how this movie can't possibly live up to expectations... But what about those of us who just want to expect a decent film with palatable dialogue?
Speaking of Comics... (Score:2)
There's an interesting storyline going on over at a comic called Misty the Mouse [mistymouse.com]. Most of this comic is an anthropomorphic madcap romp, but the latest storyline is a (so-far) well done fan comic of Star Wars called "Imperial Guardrails".
Enjoy. :o)
Quoth Cmdr Taco (Score:3, Troll)
...with the other sheep.
What, will it become a worse film if you wait a week? Everybody that goes to see this film on the opening day is sending this message, clear and load: "We don't give a damn how good this is, because we decided that we had to see it years ago. You've had our money in the bank since 1977. You could show 2 hours of Jar Jar breakdancing, and we'd queue up to see it and then temporise about ways in which it could have sucked more. Don't bother yourself actually making more than a trailer's worth of decent footage, and the rest of you Hollywood studios, take note. We're sheep. Baa. Baaaaaaaa."
But don't mind me. You go and see it, and demonstrate that it doesn't matter if you're flogging a dead horse, so long as it's a horse that people loved a lot when it was alive. Demonstrate that Hollywood (like the RIAA) is right to expect and demand a guaranteed revenue stream, regardless of whether they're making anything worth while. Demonstrate that if you lower our expectations enough, cognitive dissonance will kick in and a feeling that "Hey, that movie didn't suck as much as I feared!" will somehow morph into "Hey, that movie was OK! I guess I'll decide here and now to see the next one, no matter how drab awful it appears."
Bah, enough. You're a sheep, Taco. Enjoy being fleeced.
LEGOs galore (Score:2)
Though I would still dearly love to see a stop-motion recreation rather than stills. You gotta love that smiling Darth Maul figure....
SFBG: It Doesn't Suck (Score:2)
Lucas speaks in London on Phantom Menace (Score:2, Informative)
The Guardian newspaper has a short piece about Lucas defending Phantom Menace [guardian.co.uk] [also annoying popup].
Quick plug:
Why not compare all the Star Wars episodes [compare-stuff.com] in one swell foop! (You can also try terms like: lame, merchandise, thrilling, classic etc...)
Quickys : Cringes from Australia : Minimal Spoiler (Score:2, Troll)
Boba Fett : lets just say that kid made Jar Jar look good.
The Fireplace Scene : Urgh. I mean, just. Urgh. When the fireplace appeared the audience started laughing.
The Assembly line sequence : Caused massive Galaxy Quest Flashbacks. "This makes no sense!"
R2-D2 : He can fly ? Since when ?
Actors (Australia Only) : Jack Thompson shouldn't be in a Star Wars film. Nor should anyone from Playschool
C3-PO in final battle : C3PO should not be doing that and making jokes. Did *ANYONE* see anything wrong with this ?
Never, Ever get Christopher Lee to say "The Dark Lord". That film is at the end of the year, not this one. You might as well have Yoda shoot webbing out of his arms.. Oh.. yeah...
Trailers : In Australia we didn't get the Matrix 2 Trailer. We got : Stuart Little 2, Snow Dogs and The Crocodile Hunter Movie. I'm not f'n kiding. The goddam Crocodile Hunter. Can't we shoot him or something ? He's sending the wrong impression of our country, when he's actually a guy who got fired off a third-rate childrens wildlife show back in '91
Oh, and they screwed up Parsec again. Well done. If two star systems one parsec apart, they are closer then Alpha Centauri is to Earth. You have to do an awful lot of fanwanking to explain why Tatooine is in range while the Arena planet isn't.
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..
Parsecs again! (Score:2)
Oh, and they screwed up Parsec again. Well done. If two star systems one parsec apart, they are closer then Alpha Centauri is to Earth. You have to do an awful lot of fanwanking to explain why Tatooine is in range while the Arena planet isn't.
For those of you who are wondering, a parsec is a unit of distance, equal to about 3.086 x 10^18 meters. The distance to Alpha Centauri is about 1.2 parsecs from earth. If you systems are less than one parsec apart in distance, then they are about 3 light years apart.
I havn't seen the film, but I really hope that Lucas did not use parsecs as a unit of time. I swear I will walk out of the theater if he does. He has had 25 years to not make the same mistake twice. From your post it seems that he used it to mean distance.
One of the great revelations about special relativity is that time and distance are really the same thing, if we use the speed of light as a metric. Since c=2.99 x 10^8 m/s is constant, we can use both meters and seconds to describe the other. For example, if I say, "The store is 1000 meters away," I can also say "The store is 3.34 x 10^-6 seconds" away. The amount of distance it takes light to travel in 3.34 x 10^-6 seconds is about 1000 meters. In the opposite direction the context is a little more screwy, so that I can say, "I will be there is 1200 seconds" can also be translated as "I will be there in 3.6 x 10^11 meters" since it takes light 1200 s to travel that distance.
So Han Solo, having the fastest ship in the galaxy can make the Kessel run in 40 parsecs. 1 parsec = 3.086 x 10^18 meters and the speed of light is 2.99 x 10^8 m/s so he was saying, "... made the Kessel run 4.11 x 10^9 seconds" or 130.5 years. Gee Han, if you have the fastest ship in the galaxy I would hate to make the Kessel run in one of those bulk freighters.
Just got home from the Cinema. (Score:2)
Attack of the Clones Script and other Downloads (Score:3, Informative)
No McDonald's tie-in (Score:2)
Somewhere, there is a mountain of Jar-Jar Binks plastic toys [theonion.com] awaiting recycling into Rubbermaid trashcans.
Atom films (Score:3, Informative)
Good old text-mode fun (Score:2)
Matrix reloaded trailer (Score:3, Funny)
Re:skywalker family tree link is broken (Score:3, Informative)
will i hit the jackpot and get a right one?
http://thepensieve.net/skywalker_family_tree.ht
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~lightsabre/family
http://www.theforce.net/timetales/Sheet001
Re:Roger Ebert (Score:5, Informative)
He doesn't have a problem with digital media. He has a problem with the transfer of a digitally shot movie onto film for projection. The point he was trying to make was that if you shoot in digital you should project in digital. The problem is that only a very few number of theaters in the US has the capability to project in digital. That is what Ebert means when he said "What I dislike about Lucas' approach is that he wants to change the entire world of film to suit his convenience."
Earlier in article Ebert says, "Lucas is so eager to promote his vision of the digital future that he is willing to penalize his audience."
Re:Roger Ebert (Score:2)
Lucas's primary goal with the Star Wars films was not just making movies but pushing the moviemaking technology. And that will always be his biggest accomplishment.
Brian Ellenberger
Re:Roger Ebert (Score:2, Informative)
DVD certainly does offer a clearer picture, but that can't be extrapolated to digital projection just yet. It's very bright and the contrast and color are excellent, but I've seen them both, and I think Maxivision is considerably better at this time. However, since it's not "digital" it must be antiquated and not worth the trouble. Besides, wide adoption of digital is economically attractive to studios eventually, since movies will be downloadable instead of deliverable. That, and you won't have to worry about film splicing anymore.
Re:Roger Ebert (Score:2)
What does this prove? The CD is popular because it is convenient, not because it sounds particularly good. "Popular" has never implied "good" anyway.
- A.P.
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: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.
Re:Please just get a life (Score:2)
Re:2 out of 4?? (Score:2)
The one thing I do find amusing is that Ebert seems to talk more about the good things in movies he doesn't like, and more about the bad things in movies he does. I guess it makes sense, because if a movie really bites, the bad parts are likely to be simple ("the plot was stupid, the acting was bad"), while the good parts are likely to be more subtle ("but they did do some interesting lighting in these scenes"). Still, if you read the reviews without looking at the rating, sometimes it can be difficult to tell if he liked a movie or not.
Re:2 out of 4?? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:2 out of 4?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Semi-Spoilage Post (Score:2)
Who cares about the review? (Score:5, Insightful)
None of the reviewers seem to understand that Star Wars is MADE for the "12 year old" audience.
They are all full of cutout characters, lame dialogue, cheezy cliches, etc. 20 years from now, all the kids will remember how great Episodes 1, 2 and 3 were, and will still think they are great whenever they watch them again. Just like everyone
remembers how great Episodes 4, 5 and 6 were nowadays, and still think that whenever they watch them.
I'm sure I'll enjoy AOTC because I'm not expecting anything life-altering, or anything that will suddenly lead to enlightenment. I'm expecting a cheezy space fantasy with some cool lightsaber fights, and a far-fetched plot. In short, I'm expecting just about everything this reviewer hates about the movie. That is what Star Wars always has been.
My problem with this review is that I find it strange that he says that he couldn't remember a thing about the movie 10 minutes after he leaves the theater (because it was so incoherant, etc.), yet he us able to tell with great detail things about the movie in a coherant fasion.
Re:Who cares about the review? (Score:2)
Ebert at least was dismayed because the dialoge in 2 sounds like laywers chanting 3rd grade english books. The first movies (and even phantom menace to a degree) were at least lawyers reading trashy sci-fi novels.
btw: ever notice how Harrison Ford is the only actor that was ever good in a lucas film?
Re:Who cares about the review? (Score:2)
I would advise you to go back and look at the archives of his reviews. Sadly, the archives don't go back far enough to see his original reviews for the original trilogy. However, when they were re-released in '97, he gave each one four stars. Even The Phantom Menace got 3 and a half stars. So I think it's pretty obvious that this guy loves the Star Wars franchise, but this one really let him down.