Star Wars 3D- Episode I: The Phantom Menace

[Lord Commander Chaos]

Originally Posted by Badabidi

Can this idiot be confined to the rickshaw? Anyone know if he's had a vasectomy?

He's trolling you, bro. Don't do it.

But yeah, the SCOREBOARD MUTHAFUCKAS! doesn't really matter to someone like Lucas. For the man who has everything, his legacy is the only thing of concern to him . And I think he is beginning to see what he has done to his role in film history and that is why you are seeing the comments you are seeing now.

[Sharmai]

Originally Posted by Jysin

Where do we go from here? What is going to be the next thing to blow our minds?

They've attempted with 3D with overall poor results. Bigger resolution (4k home theater) is on the horizon, but what else?

Sorry for the rambling derail.. lol.

Well wait a second and back up just a bit. You are right that home theater is the next big thing (a serious and long-lasting push) but why go further? Think of all the potential for what can be done with home theaters and it's hard not to get excited. Advanced lightning settle, collaborative movie watching via integrated devices but from your couch. Interactive movie watching groups for people who share your tastes.

All interesting stuff that is already taking off but it does all have something in common that is, that it doesn't make more money for the movie industry. The next big thing is the decentralization of the movie industy and high end theaters that offer greater service/products to convince people to go out to the movies.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Grimey

Are you an Aggie?

No, I'm from Southern California. USC ftw.

[Itzena]

Are you George Lucas in disguise?

[Adam12]

Nah, he's The Edge in plain sight. Fuck I hate U2.

[Arakkis]

The only reason the prequels were successful is because they rode the coattails of the original movies. If Star Wars were not a thing before The Phantom Menace and it was the movie that set up the entire universe, we never would have seen 2 and 3, let alone 4-6.

[Chuk Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by Azrayne

Knowing nothing about graphics or CGI or special effects, I've always wondered how they did stuff like the lightsabers/Blaster Bolts/Force Lightning back in the 70's/early 80's. I mean how did they manipulate imagery like that with the technology available?

If anywhere here knows more I'd be fascinated if you could fill me in, been curious since I was a child and first watched them.

im just guessing here but if it were 1977 and i had to make light sabers. id just have them fighting with sticks and then later in post id just draw red and blue lines over those sticks on the negatives, frame by frame.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Castigator

/shrug

For some reason, non-CGI effects tend to hold up better for me than (older) CGI, even though puppets and miniature shots certainly don't always feel "realistic".

I can watch old Star Trek TNG, but Babylon 5 CGI is really grating. Men in Black 1 is still a fun watch, being done mainly with puppets. MiB 2 is an unbearable cheap-CGI eye-sore. Etc... Star Wars is really the extreme of it. 70s and 80s effects still "work" for me for what they tried to achieve, but Episode 1, even horrible story and Jar-Jar aside (if that is possible), just looks... "old".

Must be some uncanny valley variation. I don't know. Just the way it is.

Because digital is a LIE.

Real life is in analouge so why the fuck did we convert our tv signals and special effects to digital? Eventually it has to go back from this binary shit.

[Castigator]

Originally Posted by Chris

Because digital is a LIE.

Real life is in analouge so why the fuck did we convert our tv signals and special effects to digital? Eventually it has to go back from this binary shit.

All movies are a "lie". That's the whole point. Wether they trick you with digital effects, make-up, post-production cutting, etc... . Hell, even the fact that scripts are pre-written means they aren't "real". I don't think that is the point. Also, I enjoy a good movie with good cgi in theaters, and I enjoyed many of those that now seem so horribly out of tune today.

It is not the "lie" that matters. It was just an observation that digital, to me, appears to have a far worse half-life period than (well-done) puppet-effects, stop-motion, rotoscoping, what-have-you.

[Chris]

Because digital is worse quality than analogue. Not sure why you are bringing up random stuff to argue against me, then agree that it's worse.

[Caliane]

you are an idiot.

Digital doesn't suffer from decay or interference.

Old cgi looks like shit, mostly due to lighting. Real lighting is a very VERY VERY complex thing. Blending real lighting, and with attempts to digital recreate it is nearly impossible. Which is why a fully cgi movie isn't as bad. or a traditionally blended movie like mary poppins, etc isn't a problem. they don't have to try matching.

[SlyyDaugg]

I think part of the charm in special effects like you see in Carpenter's The Thing is that you know the actors are actually seeing what they are reacting to, whether it's all an act or not.

I once read an interview with Veronica Cartwright, one of the actresses in the movie Alien, in which she claims she was truly terrified by the special effects in front of her. You can hear her say "Oh God" in a truly horror-inducing way, unscripted and involuntary. She claims that Ridley Scott patted her on the back after the cut and told her that her voice made the scene.

I agree.

Watch the whole scene that I'm sure you've seen before, and listen to her at about 1:05. Alien - Chestburster Scene - YouTube

Whatever you say for or against the visual appeal of CGI, this is one very definite mark against it. Many actors have complained about the lifelessness in filming with heavy CGI. Personally, I think it's had a very strong impact in sterilizing the "vibe" in many, many films.

[PatrickStar]

I can't believe I am jumping into this but I thought it was pretty much understood that the whole CGI versus animatronics/puppets debate was that the CGI shit made Lucas fucking lazy. Since he couldn't forcibly throw any shit his imagination wanted to on a screen with CGI like he was limited to with the old model sets and puppets he then had to do some real fucking directing and story telling.

AKA he had to do some real movie making with the originals whereas the new ones was just him shoving as much shit he could into a movie.

[Seananigans]

Yeah the pre-production footage of him talking about how we "never got to see Yoda use his lightsaber, and now CGI will let us blah blah" talking to his partners and the guy is just nodding with this look in his eye like "fuck this guy is stupid, where do I exit?"... just priceless.

Perfect example!

[Azrayne]

Originally Posted by SlyyDaugg

I think part of the charm in special effects like you see in Carpenter's The Thing is that you know the actors are actually seeing what they are reacting to, whether it's all an act or not.

I once read an interview with Veronica Cartwright, one of the actresses in the movie Alien, in which she claims she was truly terrified by the special effects in front of her. You can hear her say "Oh God" in a truly horror-inducing way, unscripted and involuntary. She claims that Ridley Scott patted her on the back after the cut and told her that her voice made the scene.

I agree.

Watch the whole scene that I'm sure you've seen before, and listen to her at about 1:05. Alien - Chestburster Scene - YouTube

Whatever you say for or against the visual appeal of CGI, this is one very definite mark against it. Many actors have complained about the lifelessness in filming with heavy CGI. Personally, I think it's had a very strong impact in sterilizing the "vibe" in many, many films.

This is a very important point, and you constantly hear ex-prequel actors bemoaning how hard it is to act surrounded by nothing but a green/blue room compared to being immersed in a set that looks like the environment your character is supposed to be experiencing, even the Ewen McGregor interview a page or two back went on about it for a minute or two.

I honestly felt that the lightsaber scenes killed some of Yoda's character. We're supposed to believe that 900 year old dude went from bouncing around the room swinging a lightsaber at light (heh) speed while throwing shit around with the force turned into a little old dude who could barely get around without a walking stick on the verge of death in 20 years? I mean maybe if he got ill or something, sure, but I always thought it was cool of Yoda that he was kinda 'above' physical fighting, like the wise old master who sits back meditating while the student trains.