Quickies from a Galaxy Far Far Away

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.

Comments

Peter Gzowski?

[CaseyB]

Wow, Canada's most famous radio personality is back from the dead and submitting stories to slashdot.

Fan Film

[Wyatt Earp]

It's a 122.8 MB Quicktime Movie.

Just a warning.

And here's another one...

[russx2]

http://www.asciimation.co.nz

Star Wars in ascii... Maybe it's a geek thing?

Re:And here's another one...

[Captain Large Face]

Here's the same over telnet. Without doubt a geek thing. :-)

Re:And here's another one...

[56ker]

Can you get any more geeky than Star Wars in ASCII over telnet?

Re:And here's another one...

[Spy Hunter]

Oh My God...

This could be the world's first recorded slashdotting of a telnet server!

Have you no mercy?

Re:And here's another one...

[Captain Large Face]

How about Star Wars in ASCII over telnet being discussed over Slashdot.

Re:And here's another one...

[commodoresloat]

Can you get any more geeky than Star Wars in ASCII over telnet?

Real geeks use ssh!!!

I felt a tremor in the force...

[Bonker]

Obi-wan: ...As if thousands of fanboys and fangirls had called in sick.

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...

[larien]

Hehe, here in the UK, they're more worried about the football (that's soccer for americans) World cup. As it's held in Japan & Korea, all the games will be shown in the morning. They're expecting a number of sickies to be pulled on the days of the England games.

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...

[Bonker]

We Americans are always confused by World Cup Soccer. We know we want to be the best at it, but, on the whole, we don't really get it. No sport in the U.S. really has the near-universal draw that Soccer seems to have everywhere else in the world.

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.

Who's NOT going to see it?

[kir]

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?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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.

[Sunken Kursk]

No matter what the movie is like, it will not live up to most people's expectations. One of the main problems with the Star Wars series is the long time between the originals and the new trilogy. During the time that has elapsed, the Star Wars fan base has been able to get used to the chintziness of the originals. As such, the originals have morphed from merely good stories to almost miraculous examples of cinematic perfection.

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.

[Peyna]

It was pointed out to me the other day that much of the fan fiction is better than the stuff Lucas puts out nowadays. I haven't looked into it, but I'd believe it.

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.

[Joseph Vigneau]

Rather than compare it to any of the previous movies, I will attempt to simply compare it to itself.

I think it will be just as good as itself, if not better!

Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about.

[slutdot]

I agree with you but I also think the problem with Episode I as compared to 4-6 has to do with the lack of action in episode I. I still enjoyed TPM and Jar-Jar didn't annoy me as much as it did everyone else. Anakin did annoy the hell out of me though but since I've seen Star Wars again recently, I'm thinking that Lucas was maybe going for a cheesy pulp fiction type of movie and that's why he chose the actor that he chose to play the part of Anakin.

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.

[Zathrus]

During the time that has elapsed, the Star Wars fan base has been able to get used to the chintziness of the originals.

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.

[dswensen]

It was pointed out to me the other day that much of the fan fiction is better than the stuff Lucas puts out nowadays. I haven't looked into it, but I'd believe it.

You'd be wrong. Even the officially sanctioned novels feature such gems as Ikrit, the Jedi Master bunny rabbit. 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.

[birder]

I watched TPM twice in the theatre and a few times on DVD. I think anyone who has watched this movie more than twice really appreciates how much Jar-Jar adds enjoyment to the film. Anakin is far more annoying. Terrible, terrible acting and I shudder watching every scene he is in. Jar-Jar gives the film some humor which overall is fairly dry. Ok the tongue thing in Anakin's house was lame.

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.

[Tackhead]

> Anakin is far more annoying. Terrible, terrible acting and I shudder watching every scene he is in. Jar-Jar gives the film some humor which overall is fairly dry. Ok the tongue thing in Anakin's house was lame.

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.

[AJWM]

Additionally, the actors seemed bored.

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:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Sorklin]

You'd be wrong. Even the officially sanctioned novels feature such gems as Ikrit, the Jedi Master bunny rabbit. Even Lucas hasn't dreamed up something that stupid (yet).

Guess you didn't like Darth Wuggles then?

Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about.

[CleverNickName]

Maybe fans need to lower their expectations a little and just enjoy the movie for what it is.

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:

ME: What are you working on?

FRIEND: Some piece of shit.

ME: Really? What's it about?

FRIEND: It's a rip off of [recently successful movie], starring [currently hot actor] and [producer's girlfriend/mistress/wife].

ME: So it's a piece of shit, and everyone knows that, but they're still spending 20 million dollars on it.

FRIEND: Yep. It'll make it back opening weekend before anyone realizes how shitty it is. Hey, it's starring [currently hot actor], you know!

ME: Sounds great. Let's get drunk.

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.

Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about.

[autechre]

I don't think that you can classify all movies as simply entertainment rather than a work of art. Most mainstream, big budget movies? Sure. But there are plenty of filmmakers out there (most, but not all, of whom are independant) who still actually care about things like that.

--Ray

Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about.

[kubrick]

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.

... and make heaps of money.

Seriously, when was this golden age you speak of? The majority of film producers are, and always have been, businessmen more interested in the bottom line than in artisitc integrity.

At least in those days the 'hot product' they were pushing was only expected to sell more movies (e.g. movie idols like Cary Grant). These days it's all cross-merchandised up the wazoo...

Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about.

[PsychoSpunk]

Seriously, when was this golden age you speak of? The majority of film producers are, and always have been, businessmen more interested in the bottom line than in artisitc integrity.

A friend of mine who went to film school likes to point out a simple fact. Before 1977 there were no movies that reached "blockbuster" status. Since then all studio films are produced to reach the lowest common denominator in order to maximize the "blockbuster" appeal. This is not to say that there weren't any successful movies, just that after a little space opera became the highest grossing movie ever (up to that point in time) all bets were off and the quality of what is pushed out by the studios deteriorated.

In other words, the studios went from pushing movies that had a guaranteed audience in specific genres to pushing movies that were fantastical conglomerations of these various genres that may not appeal directly but held enough appeal to produce a higher draw.

Re:Ebert doesn't know what he's talking about.

[kubrick]

Before 1977 there were no movies that reached "blockbuster" status.

Cleopatra? Ben Hur? Gone With the Wind? (I'm unsure of the levels of financial success of these three films, but they exemplify the "all things to all people" attitude (while purporting to be within a specific genre) that so sickens me about the Star Wars series.)

I agree that George Lucas is to blame for the 'blockbuster' mentality, and that practically every studio film these days aims for that level of (financial) success, but I don't think that it was that good in the good old days.

Besides, what counts as a studio film these days? Any film that gets even moderately good arthouse distribution these days probably has some studio investment...

Hollywood after the war was compromised by the Hays code and McCarthyism... and I can't imagine that someone like Sam Goldwyn was more concerned with artistic integrity than the money he made.

Re:skywalker family tree link is broken

[sjwt]

hears a coupple from a quick search..

will i hit the jackpot and get a right one?

http://thepensieve.net/skywalker_family_tree.htm
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~lightsabre/familyt re e.htm
http://www.theforce.net/timetales/Sheet001. htm

Anakin does the Queen (comic)

[Snaggy]

For those who haven't seen our classic comic series, we've been running it again on AY2K as a countdown to Episode II.

It starts here...
... A long time ago, in a comic far far away...

Please fix "family tree" link...

[FortKnox]

I'm really interested in the "Skywalker Family Tree" link. But its broke atm. Please fix. Thanks.

Skywalker Family Tree

[dmomo]

Typo in the story. Here is the actual URL:

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,52408, 00 . tml

Re:Skywalker Family Tree

[Spoons]

Typo in the story. Here is the actual URL:

And in your post here is the real link.

Some reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

The reviews for the feel good hit of the summer continue to roll in!

"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... ...Anakin comes off as a whiny, brattish American teenager. He's vapid, not Vader... Lucas, frankly, is a feeble director of actors..."

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... ...[Christensen's Anakin] is the kind of whiny, irritating performance that would get most actors thrown out of 'Dawson's Creek,' much less a billion-dollar enterprise like 'Star Wars.' And yet, there he is, as pretty as Portman and easily as useless."

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

[gowen]

How about this one from The Guardian, titled "Hit me Obi one more time..."

The highlight is:

Moreover, Anakin not only has a ponytail, but also a thin length of braided hair trailing winsomely over his shoulder. As the mighty Yoda would say: "Like a wussy 12-year-old girl he looks."

Re:Some reviews

[kraf]

thanks for the link, I liked this one better:

along with the shadowy and superbly named Darth Sidious. (Who else? Darth Nuendo? Darth Vasion? Darth Tergalactic-Warfare?)

Re:Some reviews

[Galvatron]

Okay, one issue with the whole racial stereotype thing: if they're all clones, they have to be one single race, right? Furthermore, they're evil. So what race would be safe? Even the old fallback (if minorities are likely to get offended, just make them white) doesn't really work, because then they'll look like Nazi ubermensch or something. The Stormtroopers are already named Stormtroopers after all, do we need more WWII parallels?.

Re:Some reviews

[dR.fuZZo]

The reviews for the feel good hit of the summer continue to roll in!

What? None of those were reviews of Spider-Man...

Re:Some reviews

[GreyyGuy]

I don't feel movie critcis should be listened too, IMO they are nothing more than paid Comic Book Store Guys with newspapers and TV programs to vent upon.

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?

Re:Some reviews

[NeuroManson]

Jango is asian? Gee, he looked like a black haired New Zealander to me (http://jfett.8m.com/tem.htm)... Maybe the Village Voice reviewer needs glasses...

Re:Some reviews

[Chris Siegler]

Peter Travers said it ranks third of the five Star Wars movies.

His ranking

1. Empire Strikes Back
2. A New Hope
3. AOTC
4. Return of the Jedi
5. Phantom

I like Ebert and enjoy his reviews, but this is the one kind of film that always confuses him. For god sakes, he gave Phantom 3 1/2 stars!

My stupid theatre

[rosewood]

First kink in the armour Ted

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

[m3000]

TheForce.net had a story about the advanced ticket misprint earlier in the week. I was wondering about that too though before I saw the story.

Re:My stupid theatre

[rosewood]

Yea - we went through those same steps here

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

[BilldaCat]

my CmdrTaco impersonation

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

[tb3]

Yeah, but we get the last laugh. The tickets are in Ann Arbor.

Re:ahem

[Mandi Walls]

Fortunately, I do.

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

[Mr.Phil]

ummm I'm pretty sure most of Michigan is in the Eastern Time zone, all except a small portion of the UP (Upper Peninsula). I can say this as I've lived in Michigan for 20 years, having moved there from Chicago, which is in the Central Time zone.

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

[el_nino]

and you don't.

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>

Re:Roger Ebert

[amstrad]

I just do not understand Ebert's disdain for digital film, CGI, etc

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."

Ebert is right

[ciaohound]

So much CGI just looks like CGI -- it often subverts the willing suspension of disbelief. Give me the old Star Wars/Ray Harryhausen stuff anyday. But CGI is the future and economics will be on its side. (I had to laugh at last night's Smallville -- it used CGI to show a waitress dropping a tray of coffee mugs. Now that is affordable CGI!) So, if it's inevitable, is anyone working on CGI that will mimic the results of the old physical modelling techniques?

Re:Ebert is right

[dswensen]

So, if it's inevitable, is anyone working on CGI that will mimic the results of the old physical modelling techniques?

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:Ebert is right

[cvd6262]

Actually, Best played Jar-Jar on rehersal. The film was shot without him there.

Shoulda been: "RETURN OF THE QUICKIES!!!"

[tweakt]

Wow, it's been quite a long time since /. did quickies. They were one of my favorite types of articles. You get some load balancing across all of the links so there's not quite as much /. effect directed towards each site ;-)

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

[al3x]

I've said it before, and it'll be modded down as "flamebait" again, but I think it's appalling that the same editors who decry the practices of the MPAA at every turn go out and spend their money and give publicity to the most crass and over-marketed of MPAA-sanctioned output. Saying you hate the organization but love the content just isn't good enough: every dollar you spend on a MPAA film is another dollar that says "I want to be legislated against; I want to be treated like a criminal; I encourage you to use my tax dollars to hunt me down."

Re:Slurping Down the MPAA-Sanctioned Bile

[Rogerborg]

• think it's appalling that the same editors who decry the practices of the MPAA at every turn go out and spend their money and give publicity to the most crass and over-marketed of MPAA-sanctioned output

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

[sulli]

The parent is wrong. Lucas resigned from the Directors' Guild due to their moronic requirement that every movie have opening credits. (Star Wars has no opening credits at all, just the introductory text.) But the distributor, 20th Century Fox (all cheer the logo!), is very much a member of the MPAA.

Just back from the theatre...

[rediguana]

And I'm quite impressed. I watched Phantom Menace on DVD before going, and followed it up with AOTC. It was rather impressive and made Phantom look rather shallow. Yes, it may make you cringe in a couple of places, but overall, it seems more like the Star Wars of old, and it is cool to finally have the story coming together, something that didn't really happen with Phantom (of course it was mainly used as a movie to introduce characters and themes).

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...

[ZaMoose]

This is something that has confused me greatly: why do people let Lucas off easy for making Ep. 1 merely a "set-up episode" for Ep's 2 and 3? New Hope was thoroughly self-contained and was a far better movie than Ep. 1, due in large part to that fact IMNSHO.

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...

[dswensen]

This is something that has confused me greatly: why do people let Lucas off easy for making Ep. 1 merely a "set-up episode" for Ep's 2 and 3?

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:Just back from the theatre...

[mgblst]

Yes, it may make you cringe in a couple of places,

C3P0 anyone??

Matrix trailers on Entertainment Tonight

[bbh]

The Matrix trailer for Reloaded and Revolutions will be seen tonight on Entertainment Tonight. Check your local listings for it. Here is a link with more details about the May 15 ET trailer and about it being attached to another movie coming out this week.

Matrix Breaking News link

bbh

Re:Please just get a life

[Tony Hoyle]

A geek might say it, but what geek would ever have the chance to do it?

Quick Review from New Zealand

[jstockdale]

Ok guys, just got out of the theater down here and I thought I would give some feedback to the community. First of all, I'd like to qualify any negative tones that come through by stating that a few of the specific scenes were tainted in my first viewing by a big fat guy next to me that kept saying "this isn't star wars" I felt like turning next to him and saying, "well fatso, what is it then, mary fucking poppens?" because undoubtedly this is star wars.

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

[sielwolf]

Ebert has a good basic measuring stick of a good movie: if you can remember any quotes from it.

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

[SirWhoopass]

I usually agree with Ebert, but I think he's wrong here. No Star Wars movie ever had good dialogue. Just because you can remember a few quote from a twenty-some year-old movie that you've seen eighty billion times doesn't make it good.

Re:Well if Ebert is wrong

[Mignon]

Ebert has a good basic measuring stick of a good movie: if you can remember any quotes from it.

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

[ncc74656]

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant, next to the power of the Force."

Re:Well if Ebert is wrong

[ncc74656]

Oh...and I almost forgot:

"ROGER, ROGER."

You missed the rest of the line:

"What's our vector, Victor?"

Re:Well if Ebert is wrong

[Xerithane]

You missed the best one!
"How can I leave this behind"

Re:Well if Ebert is wrong

[aztektum]

Memorable quotes from the movie itself or from audience members as they left the theatre?

"Meesa Jar Jar Binks!"

Re:Well if Ebert is wrong

[shogun]

Whats our clearance Clarence?

Re:Well if Ebert is wrong

[hymie3]

"Meesa Jar Jar Binks!"
You know, this is terrible, but that "How wude!" and "Yippee!" are the only three lines from the movie I can think of.
What's bad is that I can remember more lines from "Runaway Bride" and "The Mummy" (both released the same year as TPM).
Really.

The Next Episode, Sounds Like Snoop Dogg

[puto]

Seriously, it amazes me how many people are up in arms over this flick. Now I am 32 and remember seeing star wars at age six. It wasn't the effects that got me, they were not that good anyway. It was the whole farm boy makes good story, a cute girl, the bad ass ride(the Falcon and the famous Kessel beer run story).

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

[kob43]

Kinda reminds me of something I read before.

Man, I love the Onion.

Re:Roger Ebert

[Wakko Warner]

But then again, what's been the mosat popular music media until perhaps very lately? The CD.

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.

I've seen part of it

[alen]

A friend gave me a bootleg of the first hour or so and it looks pretty good. I saw the first 15 minutes or so. The rest I'm going to watch at home. I think the whole bootleg thing is a George Lucas conspiracy. Ironically you can easily find the first part of AOTC on the file sharing networks, but the second part is no where to be found. Maybe it's a way to wet people's appetites?

Re:2 out of 4??

[Galvatron]

Actually, he hasn't given a 4 in over a month, and he puts out about half a dozen reviews a week. More recently, he gave Life or Something Like It one star, and Jason X zero and a half stars.

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.

Problems with viewing on a Digital Projector...

[Kreylix]

My wife and I watched Monsters, Inc. at a digital projector theater (AMC 1000 in SF).

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:2 out of 4??

[larry bagina]

Mr Cranky gives honest and accurate reviews.

Re:Roger Ebert

[Brian_Ellenberger]

ID Software does this all the time. Think back to Quake? Instead of making another Doom, John and the boys wrote a game that forced you to go out and get a 3D video card to enjoy the game. Looking at the incredible advances in 3D video cards, aren't you glad he forced people to upgrade? How many 3D video games still support software rendering? In the end I don't think it was "penalizing his audience" in any way.

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

Washington Post Pans It

[wiredog]

A few choice quotes from the review.

It's too long, it's too dull, it's too lame.

But the mythic source he seems to have based this episode on is . . . "The McLaughlin Group"

It's like reading the latest dispatch on the Mongolian parliament, as reported by Elizabeth Drew in a really cranky mood.

the master Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor) and his young mentee, Anakin Skywalker (played by 'N Sync star Justin Timberlake - no, no, played by Hayden Christensen, who looks like an 'N Sync kid but doesn't have as much talent).

I'll tell you one thing: no star system central, as in, say, MGM, would have built a movie around the dim Americans who haunt this one. In fact, the movie is kind of a laboratory on American vs. British technique. Score: Brits 10, Yanks 0.

even an actual great actor, Samuel L. Jackson, seems ridiculous. He never looks comfortable as the Jedi Mace Windu, in robes and boots, and there's nothing he can do at all with a line like "The Genosians aren't warriors. One Jedi has to be worth a hundred Genosians!"

The 'N Sync kid is even worse. He seems to have wandered in from a Pepsi commercial. No, that would have been Justin Timberlake. Who knows where this dreary boy has been?

Re:Semi-Spoilage Post

[CMiYC]

No its not. Because all you see is a green light blurring around the screen. It looks more like a Pinball tournament than a lightsaber fight. Oh and don't forget the overly (and I mean OVERLY) cheesy line, "It appears we can not settle this fight with our knowledge of the force..." bah. Episode II is an improvement over I, but not by much.

Who cares about the review?

[Maul]

It is pretty obvious this guy hates the entire Star Wars franchise from the start. With Star Wars, you pretty much either like it or hate it.

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?

[Telastyn]

The only problem of course, was that even the orignal star wars had memorable lines and was in a few ways funny because it was absurdly bad (trash compactor scene anyone? 3cpo? ewoks?).

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?

[Galvatron]

It is pretty obvious this guy hates the entire Star Wars franchise from the start.

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.

The best part...

[Lac]

The best part... of Ebert's review.

Too much of the rest of the film is given over to a romance between Padme and Anakin in which they're incapable of uttering anything other than the most basic and weary romantic cliches, while regarding each other as if love was something to be endured rather than cherished. There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche.

No, wait: Anakin tells Padme at one point: "I don't like the sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating--not like you. You're soft and smooth." I hadn't heard that before.

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?

Re:The best part...

[shogun]

There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche.

Comeon, this is a long time age in a galaxy far far away, so I think its not cliche there yet..

Re:From the links

[Tackhead]

> > Like any young man, he is torn between the duties of being a Jedi and pursing the woman he loves.
>
>Did I miss something? I could have sworn no 19 yr old has had to choose between being a Jedi and boinking Nat Portman. :-P Hell, I don't think anyone has ever had that choice.

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.

Links to mirrors

[cmdr_beeftaco]

Seems all the sites listed are slashdotted. Here is a link to at least one mirror

Speaking of Comics...

[Consul]

There's an interesting storyline going on over at a comic called Misty the Mouse. 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

[Rogerborg]

• I have tickets for a 12:01 showing in Ann Arbor and I'll be getting in line in just a few short hours...

...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.

Re:Quoth Cmdr Taco

[seaan]

First, I've found that a good audience can make up for a less than stellar film (I'm remembering the opening night of Stargate). That is why I usually try to catch science fiction films on opening nights, it is simply more fun.

Second, I agree there is a conflict between making the MPAA/RIAA aware of our displeasure, and going to see something like Star Wars. The truth is that I like books, music, and movies. If I did not value them so much, I would not care very much about how the MPAA/RIAA/etc. are busy screwing up the system!

That is the main reason I don't have a total ban on buying CDs and DVDs. I'll grant that it gives a mixed message, but then life is not perfect. I do know, for example, that some of the music sales drop is attributable to me (and presumably other people who feel the same way). I've gone from more than 1 CD/week purchases to less than 1 a month. I also try to buy directly from the artist when possible. Not really an effective action in the overall scheme of things. All it really accomplishes is to give the RIAA an excuse to attribute the lost sales to so-called "sharing piracy".

Re:Roger Ebert and Digital Media

[Zathrus]

Your comparison is valid only if you happen to have a 70mm film projector available to view a fresh print of Lawrence of Arabia on. If you don't, then the comparison is fairly meaningless - DVD is pretty much the best home viewing video format available to date (some may argue LD is better, but frankly that depends entirely on the bitrate of the DVD).

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.

I'll take that with a grain of salt.

[dswensen]

Looks to me like one of those reviews more enchanted with making hip in-jokes and pop culture references than actually saying anything substantive about the film. Kind of ironic, a reviewer panning the film for being too shallow while writing an utterly shallow review.

Re:I'll take that with a grain of salt.

[frank_adrian314159]

Kind of ironic, a reviewer panning the film for being too shallow while writing an utterly shallow review.

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...

LEGOs galore

[n8willis]

Well, that's interesting and all, but when I saw the link copy I must admit I was expecting something more like this: http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~mbsf/sworde.htm

Though I would still dearly love to see a stop-motion recreation rather than stills. You gotta love that smiling Darth Maul figure....

Re:Roger Ebert

[phong3d]

Actually, there is a huge advance in movie projection technology that's not digital. Ebert's choice of the best next-generation projection medium is Maxivision 48, which is a fine-grain 48 frames-per-second method of projection that presents extremely high-quality pictures with no motion blur on pans and lateral dolly shots.

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.

SFBG: It Doesn't Suck

[sulli]

Here is a positive review from the SF Bay Guardian.

Lucas speaks in London on Phantom Menace

[maccallr]

I just saw this:
The Guardian newspaper has a short piece about Lucas defending Phantom Menace [also annoying popup].

Quick plug:
Why not compare all the Star Wars episodes in one swell foop! (You can also try terms like: lame, merchandise, thrilling, classic etc...)

Re:Lucas speaks in London on Phantom Menace

[Peyna]

LONE STARR: But, Yogurt, what is this place? What is that you do here?

YOGURT: Merchandising.

BARF: Merchandising? What's that?

YOGURT: Merchandising. Come. I'll show. Open up this door. Ha, ha, ha, come. Walk this way. Take a look. We put the pictures name on everything. Merchandising. Merchandising. Where the real money from the movie is made. Spaceballs - the T-shirt, Spaceballs - the Coloring Book, Spaceballs - the Lunch box, Spaceballs - the Breakfast Cereal, Spaceballs - the Flame Thrower.

DINKS: Ooooooo.

YOGURT: The kids love this one. Last, but not least, Spaceballs - the Doll. Me.

Quickys : Cringes from Australia : Minimal Spoiler

[EvilBastard]

List of Cringes :

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.

Just got home from the Cinema.

[AntipodesTroll]

Just finished seeing it here in Australia. I liked it. Better than Episode 1, but dosent dethrone Empire, to be sure. If you liked the good bits of Ep1, go see you and you should quite like it. If all you could do is MST the entire film of Ep1, dont go see it, and spare the rest of us about how much you think it sucks. AT..

Attack of the Clones Script and other Downloads

[totallygeek]

Here is the script and the downloads are here (click on downloads).

Re:1)

[Pfhreakaz0id]

that's the only funny line in the EPI. My wife and I both commented after leaving that it lacked the humor.

Re:Quickys : Cringes from Australia : Minimal Spoi

[AntipodesTroll]

Yeah, there was some quite cringeworthy bits in it. (But hey, isnt that what SF cinema is about? :)

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..

No McDonald's tie-in

[Animats]

McDonalds is pushing BattleBots instead.

Somewhere, there is a mountain of Jar-Jar Binks plastic toys awaiting recycling into Rubbermaid trashcans.

Re:Roger Ebert and Digital Media

[SirWhoopass]

Your comparison is valid only if you happen to have a 70mm film projector available to view a fresh print of Lawrence of Arabia on.

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.

Atom films

[Fjord]

Since it doesn't seem to be posted yet, Atom Films recently picked the winners and runners up in their Star Wars short films contest. Some good works.

Good old text-mode fun

[krogoth]

Telnet to towel.blinkenlights.nl (no slashdotting please :) for star wars in all it's ASCII-art glory (and animated, no less!).

Re:Being productive?

[Surlyboi]

Not naked, but that girl's got some damn fine abs.

Re:2 out of 4??

[rustycage]

Did anyone see the pithy review in the Washington Post? It almost seems like something that comedian Dennis Miller would write.

Parsecs again!

[skwang]

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.

Re:Lego Movie

[__aasfhc1949]

Yeah, it happened to me as well.

Going early: it's not the movie, it's the crowd.

[raygundan]

The film will not get worse if I wait. I'm not even expecting it to be all that good, and it certainly isn't going to improve if I see it later, either.

However, it will be a hell of a (geeky) fun time to go hang out with the loony star wars fans in their costumes cheering at the movie and having a 3-hour party in line outside. And THAT will not be there after opening day.

I'm not going to see the movie-- I'm going to see the nuts.

Re:Roger Ebert and Digital Media

[uigrad_2000]

Since theaters and studios are not going to upgrade to 70mm for all movies, digital is good.

Well, I live in Champaign, and went to Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival this year. I heard Ebert talk a lot about how much bull the movie industry uses to sell movies. Our little historic theatre here was donated about $6000 (IIRC) this last year, so that they would have a 70mm projector for Ebert's festival. Why can't a modern theater afford this?

When a theater charges me $13 so that I can watch a 2 hour movie (thats $7 admission, $6 refreshments), I expect the latest technology! If the going price for a 70mm projector is only $6000, then the multiplexes should easily be able to put one in every other theater! Instead, they expect us not to care.

I've stayed away from the multiplexes for quite a while. I won't be seeing EP2 tonight, because I won't settle for the service they give. I'll be traveling an hour tomorrow to see it at the Lorraine Theatre in the tiny town of Hoopeston. That 1922 theatre has a large screen (unlike the multiplexes), and is the only theatre in downstate Illinois with 8-channel sound.

Many people might agree with your statement, but only out of ignorance. I have to agree with Ebert on this one. Anti-progress is never good.

Re:Roger Ebert and Digital Media

[SirWhoopass]

Note that it has to be theaters and studios. Installing 70mm projectors all over the place won't do any good if you cannot get prints.

Theaters, basically, break even on the ticket prices. They make the money on refreshments. Studios take a huge cut of the tickets, especially in the first few weeks.

I would love to see 70mm, but it isn't going to happen. Digital is better than 35mm, so it isn't a step-backwards.

Handicapped accessible tool shed.

[Restil]

Now THERE'S a line I gotta use to shut up nosy neighbors.

Not that I have nosy neighbors. They only seem to notice I exist about once every three years or so when I throw a party. They then respond by promptly calling the police as if I'd been bothering them all the time and they just finally got tired of putting up with it.

-Restil

Re:I can only remember one...

[daeley]

Actually, I think C-3P0 had the effect, since he says it in Return of the Jedi. s/Wude/Rude, of course. :)

Where Are They Now?

[DeadBugs]

CNN has a quick "where are they now?" feature on Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Billy Dee Williams.

You know, even the movie falcon was 1/3 scale...

[Thag]

Check out this site for obsessive fanboy analysis.

Jon Acheson

Another LEGO movie gem

[Jon Abbott]

Spite Your Face, the group that did the Lego Star Wars movie, also did the Camelot scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It is incredibly detailed and similar to the original!

Re:Another LEGO movie gem [correction]

[Jon Abbott]

Damned Mozilla and its recently renamed right-click menu options... Without further ado, here is the Camelot scene in LEGOvision(tm).

I have the same sort of conversations

[aztektum]

but they usually start with let's get drunk rather than end with

Matrix reloaded trailer

[smallstepforman]

Wouldn't it be ironic if people bought tickets to AOTC just so that they can see the Matrix Reloaded trailer, after which they'd walk out of the cinema.

When this story was posted...

[mallie_mcg]

I was sitting in my seat waiting for starwars - Ep2 to start. I was fortunate in that my cinema had a reserved seating policy, and that my friends and i had purchased our tickets within the first 6 sold. The previous 2 tickets sold, the people chose to sit in the back row. (WTF were they thinking?!?!?)

I would have to say that AotC was very much better than the first, but agree with a few of the gripes that others posted. The "love" scenes, ugh! wtf was lucas thinking, what he got was surely what he wanted, but why did he want that.
The scene where Amidala eats the pear like fruit after anakin cuts it, is so obviously CGI, i mean the "bite" occours about 5-15mm from her mouth.
Mace Windu is obviously sexually frustrated, something Anakin seems intent on not repeating, because i mean, purple light sabre?!?!?!
But Yoda, hot diggity damn, that little puppet can really move!

All films are digitally edited, and my mini review

[ajv]

AOTC is a good film if you like the Star Wars franchise. It's as good as Empire Strikes Back, and that is saying something.

I saw it at one of our better cinemas here, and I could see the artifacts that Ebert was moaning about. Unlike him I can't wait for the digital projectors to become universal. What many miss is that ALL films are now edited digitally, and a transfer is made to film after that. Going digital for the last stage (effectively ADD or DDD a la CDs) will help *all* films, regardless of what Ebert thinks of the use of digital movie cameras. And if George Lucas hadn't made a stand on crap sound, we'd still be listening to mono or at best stereo matrixed Pro Logic analog audio at multiplexes. He drives the industry to the next level, and I think we'll be better off for it.

AOTC is a much better film - good story arc, what Ebert mistakes as pedestrian conversation advances the character development and fleshes out the story. The action sequences are far more fun, and Anakin's descent into the dark side obvious.

Christopher Lee is excellent yet again - that dude rocks. Yoda also kicks butt, I'm glad he is no longer a puppet. :-)

The romance is a bit over the top, and realistically they are not like the overheated 19 year olds (and supposedly late 20 somethings) that I know of. And the Sound of Music hillside was so kitsch. I wonder his Lucas was having a nod deliberately, or if it was unintential. We've heard Natalie sing before in the Professional, and lets just say I thought she was going to break out in really badly sung "THe HIIIIIIIILS are ALIIIIIIVE with the sound of MUUUUUUUSIC", so bad was the surrounding "romance".

There is one Galaxy Quest-esque scene in here. I wish George Lucas had bothered to watch it before writing the script, as I think the writers of that film could fairly charge plagarism. Instead of what's supposed to be a scary second-to-last final action sequence where the protagonists are in mortal danger, the audience was laughing! Lucas can do so much better than relying on a factory cliche with die stamps.

Re:Roger Ebert

[jaoswald]

But CD is clearly more capable than the previous analog recording media. As in, more dynamic range than the analog mastering media.

Early CD recordings had trouble because of a lack of experience in mixing for the new medium, and building a good reconstruction filter for the analog stage of a CD player is not trivial, but the medium is unquestionably better, except for audiophile mystics.

Digital projection is still not more capable than film, especially not the 70mm film shown under art house conditions that Ebert is comparing it to. Compared to an abused 35mm print shown at your local mall cinema, digital probably is better. In color saturation, digital is probably better. But the resolution is not quite there, and that is really what makes the difference in Ebert's comparison.

Re:All films are digitally edited NOT!!!

[jaoswald]

"Digitally edited" does not mean "digitally imaged."

Editing, roughly speaking, is the cutting-and-pasting of the daily shoots into something that actually tells a story.

For digital editing, a copy of the daily shoots is made in digital form for assembly. HOWEVER, the sequence of film segments can then be referred back to the originally shot film, which is PHYSICALLY cut and assembled in order to form an "analog master" from which the final prints are made.

There are obvious reasons why digital editing is superior: you don't have to bother with physically cutting and splicing many pieces of film. It is easier to cut and recut. The film itself is handled only the minimal amount. The digital copy that the editor works with does not need to be high resolution, as it is only used to establish the cuts, not fed into the projector in the cinema.

Re:Roger Ebert and Digital Media

[Apotsy]

As for digital cinema, I belive the theater-grade DLP systems are 2048x1536

No they aren't. They're 1280x1024, and have been ever since they started doing demos 5 years ago.

Look, here's the facts

[evilviper]

The movie sucks...

Don't stop reading yet... You'll have time to mod me down after you've read.

The reason it sucks is because it's nothing more than a very cheesy story with some good special effects.

It's the same sort of Jedi worshiping film as Phantom Menace was.

The three real star wars movies were very well written complex scripts. These prequals have the predictability of any disney film.

The story in it's entirety:
Anakin Guards the girl. That leads to discovering a covert cloning project. Anakin sees his mother died, blames himself, and does a little evil because of it. Big jedi fight. Cloning story line reveals corrupt ex-jedi in leage with Sith. Yoda makes fearful prediction. Anakin get's the girl.

I really didn't leave anything out. That's the whole damn story. Just like EP1, it's visually impressive, but there's no story to it. I think Lucas actually HURT the popularity of the original 3 with these terrible terrible prequils. These movies suck. Not the worst movies I've ever seen, but in the top 25.

Re:Look, here's the facts

[mgblst]

The three real star wars movies were very well written complex scripts.
br.Wow.. i would love to see these movies, are they anything like a new hope, empire and jedi???

Re:All films are digitally edited (!) NOT!!!

[ajv]

Please refer to your Phantom Menace DVD bonus features. Phantom Menace was also edited digitally and composited from there back onto film - some of the editing tricks include removing characters completely from a scene by V edits, something that you simply cannot do using a sharp knife for hundreds of frames.

I'm sure you're right about many films using the SMTPE codes to generate an edit list (effectively a A-D-AA process), but with the film scanners that are available today, the quality difference between a digitally edited and composited film and one that uses traditional edit techiques (effectively splicing lots of physical film frames together) isn't much.

The problem as you note is the original source - a digital camera. If you read my original posting, I make the point of saying that the problem relates to the digital camera not the editing process. Films like the Matrix were also digitally edited and composited, and do not suffer the effects of a digital camera.

Re:All films are digitally edited, and my mini rev

[ajv]

I think your mistaken! - Christopher Lee has been Christopher Lee long before Sean Connery tried the distinguished looking beard.

Check IMDB - Christopher Lee has been in hundreds of films - he IS the centre of the universe if you play six degrees at all. Kevin Bacon eat your heart out.

Re:2 out of 4??

[(void*)]

Sorry, but Roger Ebert is not one of those snooty critics. He understands SF films

Re:Roger Ebert and Digital Media

[MtViewGuy]

I think Ebert is wrong, too.

While a true 35 mm print in pristine form is great, the problem is that for a two-hour movie you're talking six 20-minute reels of 35 mm film that is probably going to weigh around 35 pounds for each reel. I'm not going to guess how much it costs to ship 210 pounds of film anywhere even by UPS Ground service. Also, movie prints have some really major downsides: easily scratched, easily breaks, and color quality could fade over time.

With the rapid development of blue-spectrum LED lasers in the last few years, I expect pretty soon that a movie intended for theatrical digital projection will easily fit on a single 300 mm two-sided optical disc, about the same as the old Laserdiscs. Given that such a package would probably weigh about 5 pounds at most, that is a reduction shipping weight by a factor of 42.

Anyway, wuth the combination of my suggested digital storage format and improvements in digital projection systems that will lower its cost dramatically by 2010, I expect by 2010 most of the major theater complexes will have at least 40-50% of its screens using digital projectors.

Re:Roger Ebert

[shogun]

uhhh.....original Quake was not 3d accelerated untill months after it came out. Even Quake 2 could be played in software. There was not any "forcing" going on.

Actually maybe he means Quake III Arena which would not run at all unless you have a 3d accelerated video card of some kind. There was a hack to force it to play with software opengl drivers, but it was so slow as to be worthless. However it should be noted that this was released well after there was already quite a degree of market penetration of 3d cards in general...

Re:Roger Ebert and Digital Media

[Apotsy]

By the way, here is a reference from TI's official website stating that the resolution is 1280x1024.