Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies

Attack of the Really Big Clones 278

Posted by michael from the motion-sickness dept.
An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports that Attack of the Clones is coming to an IMAX theatre near you. 50 IMAX commercial venues, and 20-30 science museum sites will begin showing the film on November 1. The IMAX version is expected to add another $20M to the films current $300M take."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Attack of the Really Big Clones More

Attack of the Really Big Clones

Comments Filter:

  • Maximize the Crap! (Score:4, Troll)

    by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @01:58PM (#4229980) Homepage
    Now that Star Wars is nothing more than a marketing tool for crappy fast food meals and stupid action figures, it doesn't surprise me that they are going to go "IMAX" to boost the take of AotC so "My Fat Greek Wedding" (A far better movie) won't beat it at the box office this year. Yes, "My Fat Greek Wedding" is better than Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.
    • Just my quick two cents: I totally agree. MBFGW was a thousand times better than that cereal-pushing, merchandise-spawning, whiny-Canadian-Ptretty-Boy-Starring multi-million dollar fiasco.

      That said, I'm still going to see Episode 3

      I mean, come on. It's STAR WARS, people!
      • Just my quick two cents: I totally agree. MBFGW was a thousand times better than that cereal-pushing, merchandise-spawning, whiny-Canadian-Ptretty-Boy-Starring multi-million dollar fiasco.

        I think I missed something in MBFGW. I saw that on a plane flight and thought it was the most mind-numbingly dull and tedious movie so devoid of humor and anything related to funny I thought my brain was going to erupt from my ears with such violence the plane would experience turbulence.

        But I agree it was better than AotC, short of the combat scenes.
      • MBFGW was a thousand times better than that cereal-pushing, merchandise-spawning, whiny-Canadian-Ptretty-Boy-Starring multi-million dollar fiasco

        Not to get too far off topic, but the star of MBDGW is also a Canadian - Nia Vardalos [imdb.com]. It's also worth noting that IMAX is a Canadian invention...
    • "My Fat Greek Wedding" (A far better movie) won't beat it at the box office this year. Yes, "My Fat Greek Wedding" is better than Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.

      Strangely you got the Star Wars movie title correct, including the colon, yet misnamed My Big Fat Greek Wedding [imdb.com] both times.

    • Lucas: $1,782,786,982...$1,782,786,983... that's it? Damn! Still not enough money. How can I possibly take over the world with this paltry sum.

      Speilberg: Poight!

      Lucas: How can I raise the rest? My new movie wont be released for another year.

      Speilberg: Say Brain, why don't you re-release Episode II and replace all the guns with cell-phones! Poight!

      Lucas: What do you take me for, an idiot? Only a moron would do that.....Hmmm... re-release... into an even Bigger Hollywood Production. Say Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?

      Speilburg: Sure Brain, but where are we going to find velcro and vasleine at this time of the night?

      Lucas: ......

      Lucas: Your ignorance is only exceeded by your idiocy.You fool, now is the time for Episode II part II The Really Really Big Edition!

  • Great... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Noofus ( 114264 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:00PM (#4230005)
    So Jar Jar is now going to be a BIG pain in the ass instead of just a 'pain in the ass'. Whats next - giant tribbles?

  • Figures (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Phoenix ( 2762 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:00PM (#4230011)
    George Lucas must be a bit miffed that Spiderman was the bigger hit and is trying to put the final nail in the "who made more money" coffin.

  • The Lion King... (Score:2, Informative)

    by skribble ( 98873 )
    will be coming out on IMAX about the same time too. Could be a good year end for IMAX.

  • A Dream Come True (Score:3, Funny)

    by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:01PM (#4230023) Homepage Journal
    Finally...I can completely immerse myself in the sickly sweet meadow scene.

    And watch Yoda bounce and skitter across the heads of the audience down in front.

    Some of the more grandiose, expansive scenes will come out nicely though. These are what IMAX does best. The droid factory, the clone factory, and the city chase will be especially striking.

    • I can completely immerse myself in the sickly sweet meadow scene

      Now when I sleep through this part, I can actually feel like I'm sleeping in a gentle grassland. Perhaps I'll bring a fan so I can feel the wind on my face. I'll just need to bring someone to wake me up for the good parts, incase the gentle meadow were to put me too deeply asleep.

  • jeez... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by skydude_20 ( 307538 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:01PM (#4230024) Journal
    those slashdot editors, took my title and still rejected it..
    2002-09-10 16:46:30 Attack of the really big Clones (articles,movies) (rejected)

  • Tasty Pixels! (Score:2, Informative)

    by asdfasdfasdfasdf ( 211581 )
    Well, that should make the pixels on the screen that I saw on standard 35mm about as big as a life-size R2. Nausiating Pixelicous goodness.

    Seriously, though, "Beauty and the beast" was hard to watch in IMAX, because you could see every little artist flaw, and the 1990-era CGI looked really terrible. And 'clones' was shot in 1920x1080, that should make the pixels approxamately, what, one foot square each? Yikes.
  • There are no plans to distribute the Imax version of "Clones" internationally.
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    Who do I have to beat up with a light saber to get it to Europe (Denmark)?
  • Who wants to see AOTC on a massive screen? The pixelation was bad enough on a normal screen. Perhaps LucasFilms have developed an advanced interpolation algorithm to overcome the problem.

    • Re:Pixels! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ProfBooty ( 172603 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:13PM (#4230159)
      i saw it in a digital screen, the image was much clearer, but suffered from the "tron" effect, people just jumped out from the cgi backgrounds pasted behind them.

      the upside was that you could actually see yoda moving around and he wasnt a blur like the first time i saw the movie

      seeing it in digital did not make it a better movie, but seeing it on an IMAX, if properally formatted might be really nice for the battle scenes.
  • I know Episode II wasn't the greatest of flicks, but that's a whole huge flamewar waiting to happen. Moving on...

    The real question: The CNN story doesn't list cities where it'll be playing. Anybody find any stories elsewhere that list venues?
    • I was wondering the same thing, especially whether it'd be showing in my city. I did a search for "Star Wars" films on the IMAX web site, and only got a documentary on Star Wars special effects. The web sites of companies running local IMAX theaters didn't tell me much, either (except that Apollo 13 is Coming Soon). I'm guessing a formal announcement hasn't been made yet.
  • Of showing movies shot with the idea of standard movie theater in mind being shown on a IMAX screen. What's the big deal? It's just a bigger screen. I can see that (with exception of Crappy Audio) at a drive in!

  • didn't need it bigger (Score:3, Funny)

    by Xzzy ( 111297 ) <sether@@@tru7h...org> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:05PM (#4230077) Homepage
    I fail to see how blowing up the image and putting me a lot closer to it is going to make it any easier to watch anakin explain to the senator how her skin isn't like sand.

    I have a feeling it'd have the opposite effect.

    Now maybe if they just took the last 20 minutes of the movie and put it on replay for an hour and half they'd be on to something.

  • That's no moon, (Score:5, Funny)

    by uberstool ( 470348 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:05PM (#4230080)
    It's a pixel the size of your head!

  • Not to be a troll... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JahToasted ( 517101 ) <toastafari AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:06PM (#4230087) Homepage
    That movie was painful enough as it is on the big screen, why torture yourself and watch it on a really, really big screen? On the scale of suckage this is like a blackhole.

    Now the original starwars and empire, that would be cool (am I getting old?).

    Is anyone else going to see episode 3 only because we know anikin is gonna get his ass kicked by obi-wan?

    Alright, mod away, I got karma to burn.

  • This is offtopic but I decided to ask this question the next time a Star Wars topic came around.

    As we've seen, there are lots of SourceForge ads on Slashdot (both part of OSDN, I know). There are a few different kinds, but the two I see most often are the ones based off of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Now, I dunno/don't care about the LOTR ones but I was curious - since we all know how hard Lucas___ can come down on copyright infringement, how is it that SourceForge is able to advertise using clearly Star Wars related ads? Or are they different enough from Star Wars to avoid it?

  • Heh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the Man in Black ( 102634 ) <jasonrashaadNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:07PM (#4230095) Homepage
    Anything to get it over Spider-Man, eh?

    http://us.imdb.com/Charts/usatopmovies

    Oh, that Lucas. Anything to say "Episode II: Highest grossing movie of 2002!!!"

    Spider-Man: $403,706,375
    Episode II: $301,131,530

  • i wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gol64738 ( 225528 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:08PM (#4230110)
    i wonder if the original film was converted using the newly developed technology by RedHat called IMAX DMRTM using Dell PowerEdge servers.
    at the last LinuxWorld show in San Francisco, i was able to catch bits of a converted Apollo 13 to IMAX format.
    holy crap, the launch scene was absolutely incredible and shots from the moon actually brought a tear to my eye.
    with this technology, any movie can be converted to IMAX format. here's a blurb from RedHat:

    "IMAX's new patent-pending technology, IMAX® DMRTM (Digital Re-mastering), uses the processing power of Dell PowerEdge servers to re-purpose individual frames of 35mm film into IMAX films are projected on screens eight-stories high and 120-feet wide with high caliber sound and image quality. Apollo 13 is the first theatrical live-action film to be digitally re-mastered for The IMAX Experience.

    The IMAX DMR technology resides at IMAX's Toronto data center which processes several hundred gigabytes of data daily and is one of the largest rendering farms in Canada. IMAX uses dozens of Dell PowerEdge 2550 servers running Red Hat Linux for its DMR process, as well as an additional cluster of Dell PowerEdge 2550 servers for testing. IMAX chose Dell PowerEdge servers running Red Hat Linux for its IMAX DMR process because of the easy-to-use industry-standard platform, outstanding price and performance, and superior Dell support."
    • Well, wasnt AoTC shot "all digital" ... seems they would not need to remaster a bunch of 35mm film for this one.

      ~GoRK
    • Hope they do Space Cowboys soon.

      Also, Pinocchio, the one Disney cartoon masterpiece.

      Then they can stop. Human civilization will have been completed.

    • Re:i wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Target Drone ( 546651 )
      Isn't the biggest problem with transferring regular film to IMAX not in the resolution but in the actual framing of the shots.

      I could be wrong but I believe that for a regular film if you have two characters talking to each other you could frame them so that one is at the left edge of the screen and the other is at the right edge. If you do this for IMAX (with it's larger screen) however the audience will actually have to turn their head back and forth to look at the two characters. To get around this problem an IMAX director zooms out a little so that the characters are closer together. This means that you can now see the background at the left and right edges of the screen.

      So the problem with transferring a regular film to IMAX is that you have to move your head a lot while watching the film because there was no extra bits of background footage to add onto the left and right of the screen.

    • Re:i wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by GeekLife.com ( 84577 )
      This [starwars.com] seems to be saying it is. Using IMAX DMR, anyway. (not sure how that's supposed to stand for Digital reMasteRing, though).

    • Re:i wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MisterBlister ( 539957 )
      i wonder if the original film was converted using the newly developed technology by RedHat called IMAX DMRTM using Dell PowerEdge servers.

      Huh? Just because IMAX uses Red Hat Linux on the servers that do the processing doesn't make it "newly developed technology by RedHat". Are you on crack, son?

  • I just happen to have a chance cube here. Blue, I won't see the movie on Imax. Red, I'll queue up early.

    (Roll cube and wave my own hand over it.)

    Blue! What a surprise!

  • It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonym1ty ( 534715 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:12PM (#4230154) Homepage Journal

    Yeah the idea of Star Wars on iMax is a good idea... EXCEPT the movie wasn't filmed for iMax. iMax was made to give you the feeling of being pulled into the action with it's peripheral vision filling screensize. Putting this movie on it will give you headaches and seizures. all those huge 7-story tall people on both sides of the screen making you move your head more than a tennis match

    Not to mention the frame rate of iMax causes an obvious flicker when projected so large. And that this movie was filmed digitally with resolution that = crap to many movie goers now... If you couldn't tell then, I'll bet you can tell on iMax!

    It will look like another iMax movie that was screwed up by camera shots that were all wrong for such a big screen

    See What I hate about iMax [slashdot.org] - It isn't really iMax I hate, just what some people do to it.
    • See What I hate about iMax...

      You know what I hate? When somebody consistently screws up a trademark that's easy to get right. It's IMAX, all caps. Not "iMax," which looks like you were typing "iMac" and you fat-fingered it.
    • With IMAX, the actors and thier egos will be of the same size!

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by AntiNorm ( 155641 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:15PM (#4230181)
    Slashdot decides that it likes the MPAA after all.

  • Digital Clones Facts & Figures (Score:5, Interesting)

    by asdfasdfasdfasdf ( 211581 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:16PM (#4230187)
    According to this site, [1570films.com] the average imax screen is 21.5m x 15.6m.

    The resolution of 'Clones' was in the neighborhood of 2000x1000 (2.2 million pixels sony 24p) [starwars.com]

    We can assume it will be pan and scan (as all IMAX-conversions so far have been)--IMAX is 4:3.

    Therefore, the vertical resolution will be about 1000 pixels per 15.6m, or 1.56 CM each. That's a pretty huge pixel. Ow.

  • Question (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tattva ( 53901 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:19PM (#4230242) Homepage Journal
    Question:

    Will it still suck?

  • I went to the Matrix in IMAX, and I seriously hope this survives the transition better. The Matrix came out with horrid color and degraded picture quality.

    Also, I'm assuming that the IMAX media won't be showing it in digital format, so I hope that the larger size doesn't just enhance the fact that it wasn't made for the format. The movie looked good in the normal theatre, but considering the picture quality I don't expect it to look better when it's bigger.
  • I didn't see anything about Digital Light Projection [dlp.com]. Will IMAX have this too or is it not possible? :)
  • ... the film will suck 8 times as much? Will the bad guys be 8 times as stupid?

    If you send a droid to go assassinate someone, you don't then program the droid to come right back to you when it's done! You make it blow itself up!

    Along those lines, why use worms when you can use a thermal detonnator? She dies, Jedi dies, everybody within a few kilometers dies... problem solved!

    Not that you'd have to do that if you had just nuked the landing platform to begin with...

    The Jedi lost you in the bar. You're a shape-shifter. You can then waltz out without anybody being the wiser. So why do you try to attack one of them?

    Jedi comes after you and tries to kill you before you're able to leave the planet. You have two guns, but he deflects the shots. Why not shoot both guns at the same time, making him deflect two at once? Better yet, get a freakin' shotgun!

    But Obi Wan has the pesky habit of not dying. Why not destroy the damned hyperdrive he left up in orbit? Guaranteed way to keep him from following you! Dur!

    Hmmm... Jedi are attacking bad guy base. They all have light sabres. You have guns. Ranged weapons! Do you honestly think that the Jedi are going to have a harder time deflecting your shots if you get close enough to... say... get your head cut off?

    Jengo Fett: Bad-ass or dumb-ass? No wonder the clones dropped like flies, look at who they were trying to re-create!

    Not that the good guys are much better. Let's fall in love with the freaky stalker/homicidal maniac character! Hell, if that were anything like real life, I might not have... well, let's not go there...

  • Science museums?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:30PM (#4230350) Journal

    50 IMAX commercial venues, and 20-30 science museum sites will begin showing the film on November 1.

    Okay, enough jokes about pixelation on the IMAX screen. Time for something serious. Am I the only one here who is getting a bit annoyed by LucasFilm's pentration into the museum market? A few years ago Lucas managed to con museums into showing a bunch of Star Wars stuff under the pretense that it was a modern day mythology and should be deserving of serious study. Now he's got science museums showing his movies? Look, regardless of whether you thought AOTC was a good movie or not, can anyone give me a good reason why it should be shown in a science museum? That's supposed to be a place for learning facts about the world around you. Not for watching a movie about explosions a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

    Are the museums going to get a cut of the profits for showing the film there? Is that why they're doing this? Or is it a gimmick to increase their attendance? Isn't it enough that I can't get a burger without seeing Anakin's smug face starting back at me? Do they have to invade museums too? Will I ever stop asking questions? :)

    Seriously, the "science museum" part bugged me a lot more than the IMAX part.

    GMD


    • Many IMAX screens are actually in science museums. I assume the museums will get a cut of the ticket sales... that can only be a Good Thing(TM).
    • Lucas "managed to con museums" into the Star Wars: Magic of Myth exhibit? That's going a bit far, don't you think?

      It was a traveling exhibit from the Smithsonian. Museums wanted it because it brought people in. Obviously it's not fine art nor a hard science exhibit. It's basically a pop culture exhibit. Still, it's not like Lucas was out there trying to con people into seeing it. They wanted to see it and lined up all by themselves.

    • Yeah, I was annoyed years ago when, at the Smithsonian, I saw the Odetics ODEX-1 [inebraska.com], a real six-legged robot and a beautiful piece of engineering, next to an R2-D2 suit. Of course, the R2-D2 suit was getting all the attention.

      In San Francisco, though, the local IMAX is operated by Lowe's Cinemas in the Sony Metreon, so it's strictly commercial.

    • can anyone give me a good reason why it should be shown in a science museum? That's supposed to be a place for learning facts about the world around you. Not for watching a movie about explosions a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.


      And my local science museum (Boston) shows laser shows set to popular music in the planetarium. I can see TWO good reasons for this type of thing:
      1) If they're not showing anything else, it's a great way for the museum to get some extra revenue. I'm sure they need it.
      2) It's also a good way to get people interested in what the museum has to offer. Sure a bunch of people are just going to go there to see ATOC on a gigantic screen, but maybe a few of them who would not usually be interested in a museum would realize there are things there to see. That's a bit of a stretch, I tend to think it's just a good way to get supplemental revenue, but 2. could be an added bonus.

      Regardless, if the theatre is not currently in use at that time, I see no reason for them not to show it. Not many museums have educational things going on late at night. I assume a movie is not going to pre-empt their regularly scheduled programming.

    • The reason it is being shown in Science Museums is becuase that's where the IMAX theaters are.

      The Boston Science Museum also shows "Laser Pink Floyd" every saturday night... and aside from the possible connection to chemistry, it has little to do with science.

      M@
    • Sorry to be so blunt, but honestly.

      Maybe Lucas is employing some kind of "invasion of the science museums" idea with this, but in reality, they're the only place to find an IMAX screen within 300 miles, and science museums (the one in Boston, actually) are the ONLY place I've ever seen the dome-shaped screen in. THAT is an experience, I actually got motion sickness there once, and I'm usually very strong stomached.

      Dont' get me wrong, I'm sure they said "Hey! When we convert to IMAX we can flood the museums with our merchandising crap too!" but I would imagine the availibility of screen space is the key to this move.

      P.S. Isn't Star Wars a form of modern mythology? Certainly enough people are into it to quialify it somewhat. I'm not sure it should be "pushed" on a museum however...

    • Re:Science museums?? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Masem ( 1171 )
      At the Cleveland Science Muesum a few years ago, there was a Star Trek exhibit, showing how 'close' we were to some of the ideas introduced from TOS (some TNG too). Eg: portable lasers aren't impossible, but we're still working on transporters and warp drive, though there are some taking such research seriously. Of course, most of the displays were stylized ala Trek (LCARS displays, TNG-style walls, etc), and several screen grabs from various episodes, information from the tech guides, and so forth, were throughout the exhibit.

      It wasn't necessarily bad (IMO, the cost of admission ,being above and beyond the normal museum cost, wasn't worth it), but it does give a way for kids to realize that some science fiction is a lot closer to reality than it might seem sometimes.

      Of course, with Star Wars, it's much less *science* fiction, as just science *fiction*, so it would be hard pressed to argue that alone, a SW exhibit would be useful. (Would they explain what a parsec really is?) However, save for selected theaters, a good number of IMAX screens are only at science museums, and thus a tying of the movie with an attempt at a science exhibit can do nothing but to help boost attendence at these museums. (Yes, Lucas will get some portion of each pass sold, but there's still some money going back to the museum).

    • If it helps any, the St Louis Science Center will still be showing 'Life in a dull part of the Ocean' and 'The Great Plains: Yep, They Sure are Flat!'.

  • Normal projection field (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Yo Grark ( 465041 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:36PM (#4230387)
    Listen, not to get your hopes up, but here in Canada (Ontario Place specifically) they've been showing a variety of movies there for years.

    The only thing that's BIG is the LETDOWN when you realize the a huge border around the movie doesn't get used. They just show the movie in the centre of the IMAX Screen and draw the curtains to make it look bigger.

    Bah, watch out for marketing tricks. If it wasn't shot in IMAX or converted to IMAX, it'll be shown in regular size, just on a bigger screen.

    I hope someone can confirm or deny that my experience stands with AOTC

    - Yo Grark

    Canadian Bred, with American Buttering
    • This isn't just the "standard" film on a big screen. The whole point of the article is about the Imax re-formatting of it.

    • Re:Normal projection field (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Fishstick ( 150821 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @04:23PM (#4231358) Journal
      >I hope someone can confirm or deny that my experience stands with AOTC

      the answer was only a click away:

      "Clones" thus becomes the second live action re-release to be scheduled for Imax re-formatting since company unveiled a proprietary conversion process in March.

      "Imax re-formatting" doesn't sound like it it just being projected on a bigger screen.

  • Yum (Score:2, Informative)

    by dr_dank ( 472072 )
    Natalie Portman nip-ons in three-story screen glory.

    'Nuff said.

  • Commercial IMAX offerings (Score:3, Interesting)

    by namespan ( 225296 ) <namespan.elitemail@org> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @02:58PM (#4230583) Journal
    There are certain films I'd be more than happy to see in IMAX theatres... ATOC probably being one of them, Matrix... anything that's stunning visually and is a good ride. I don't know how much Sense and Sensibility or even some Jackie Chan films would fit in.

    But most of all, I worry about whether the current really interesting IMAX fare would be replaced by Hollywood dreck. After all, it sells, right? The day that "To the limit" is replaced by "Gone in 60 seconds" is the day the IMAX stuff will stop meaning much.

  • on a bigger screen it will make it better ? I'd like to see LOTR on a IMAX :) The latest LucasArts toy line extended commercial I can pass on.

  • Fantasia on IMAX (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @03:20PM (#4230782) Homepage
    The IMAX version of Fantasia 2000 was painful. That project was an edit of old and new material. The new stuff had been created at a resolution suitable for IMAX, but blowing the old stuff up to that scale made it look awful.
    • I was under the impression that Fantasia 2000 was IMAX-only, your post made it sound otherwise. Was I mistaken? On a related note, I do agree that it was awful, though not for quite the same reasons you've stated. It was just a genuinely horrible film. But I should stop now before I get further off-topic. :)

    • Re:Fantasia on IMAX (Score:2, Informative)

      by RasputinAXP ( 12807 )
      Sorry, but you're incorrect.

      Fantasia 2000 had only one bit from the original Fantasia, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." The rest of the film was IMAX. I also believe that "The Sorceror's Apprentice" was shown in the IMAX theater with a large black border around it as it was in the DVD release.

      Incidentally, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" was in 4:3 'standard' ratio since it's from the 30's.
  • Honestly, despite all the hype over the "mind-blowing special effects" in Attack of the Clones - I also saw a few really poor quality scenes.

    EG. When that "stamper" in the factory was about to crush the droids on the conveyor belt, it looked like the characters were overlaid on top of a backdrop. (Same cheezy stuff you see on those late-night commercials where they want to make it look like a guy is flying, so they have him stand in front of a bluescreen and replace the blue with a photo of the city skyline.)

    The movie had sort of a "cut and paste" feel to it. Some scenes (AKA. Yoda saber fight) were top-notch, but they went up against scenes where everything looked too computer-generated and "fake". In the battle scenes with many characters on the ground, I got the feel that they took scenes from Jurassic Park and replaced the dinosaurs with Star Wars creatures.

    Why would I want to see this patchwork zoomed up on an IMAX screen, where the flaws become even more apparent?
  • Are they goign to be editing AotC for content? A /. article not to long ago said they were editing the IMAX release of Apollo 13, i think a couple of swears would upset a lot fewer people than a kid picking up his fathers decapitated head.
  • Only reason I might be interested in the IMAX version. :-)

  • Imax now, not before. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by markwelch ( 553433 ) <markwelch@markwelch.com> on Tuesday September 10, 2002 @05:35PM (#4231931) Homepage Journal
    Hmm. When most of the big blockbuster movies are released, my local Regal Cinemas offers them on the Imax screen, at least one showing per day -- thus I saw Pearl Harbor on Imax, and at least one other (plus Gladiator, but that was its special re-release for Imax).

    But when I went to buy my "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" ticket, they said that Lucas wasn't allowing any Imax showings, arguing that the film quality was not up to par for that format. I assume they are doing a different film format, but I also can't imagine paying another $9 or $10 to see a movie I've seen before. (I'd gladly have paid the full-price ticket to see it on Imax originally, rather than paying the matinee price for the regular viewing.)

    As I think about it, I'm not sure which scenes would benefit especially from Imax. The war scenes in "Pearl Harbor" were cool at that size, and Gladiator was OK at that size.

  • What's Godzilla doing with a lightsaber!!!

    Oh, wait, thats yoda... cool!

Slashdot Top Deals

It appears that PL/I (and its dialects) is, or will be, the most widely used higher level language for systems programming. -- J. Sammet

Close