Slashdot Mirror
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.
It's a 122.8 MB Quicktime Movie.
Just a warning.
http://www.asciimation.co.nz
Star Wars in ascii... Maybe it's a geek thing?
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.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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!
When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
hears a coupple from a quick search..
m t re e.htm. htm
will i hit the jackpot and get a right one?
http://thepensieve.net/skywalker_family_tree.ht
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~lightsabre/family
http://www.theforce.net/timetales/Sheet001
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
For those who haven't seen our classic comic series, we've been running it again on AY2K as a countdown to Episode II.
... A long time ago, in a comic far far away...
It starts here...
Typo in the story. Here is the actual URL:
, 00 . tml
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,52408
The reviews for the feel good hit of the summer continue to roll in!
...Anakin comes off as a whiny, brattish American teenager. He's vapid, not Vader... Lucas, frankly, is a feeble director of actors..."
...[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."
"There is not one line in this movie that you can quote with any pleasure. It is the most banal script I have ever read," raves Roger Ebert of Ebert and Roeper.
David Ansen of Newseek enthuses,"Lucas's enterprise has long since passed out of the arena of mere entertainment and into the realm of pure faith. You're either a true believer or an agnostic. To the former, its value is beyond debate, and all criticism a form of heresy. Which leaves guys like me doing the Devil's work. Let the hate mail commence...
Says John Anderson of Newsday, "...only those audiences already up to their necks in "Star Wars" ephemera could possibly care about the actual plot points on which the latest installment rests...
Intones Mark Caro of the Chicago Tribune, "Now Anakin is a headstrong, moody 19-year-old played with doleful looks and a curling lip by Hayden Christensen, and he's still barely a person. He speaks in topic sentences, and what they say is this: 'I like to take risks. I love Padme (Natalie Portman). I'm ready to be a Jedi knight. I resent that Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) still bosses me around. I love Padme. I'm frustrated that I'm so strong, yet I can't protect my mom.' For such a visually oriented filmmaker, Lucas commits an unpardonable sin: He tells instead of shows... Lucas' tin ear for dialogue doesn't help. Padme to Anakin: 'I've been dying a little bit each day since you came back into my life.' Oh, ick.!!!!!!!"
Raves Steven Rea in the Philadelphia Inquirer, "This thing will have your mind glazed over faster than a glob of dough in a Krispy Kreme plant... 'Clones' makes the Frodo-speak of 'Lord of the Rings' sound like Noel Coward."
And, last but not least, Michael Atkinson of the Village Voice says, "Jango serves as the template for a covert army of obedient, disposable, Asian- featured clones. The backlash against the last film's racist stereotypes apparently never reached Skywalker Ranch... Labeling a villain 'Sidious' is one thing, but calling a minor character 'Elan Sleazebaggano' is another achievement entirely... There is an odd cognitive dissonance at work between the obvious ingenuity dedicated to the film's visual details -- alien anatomies, industrial machinery, technological minutiae -- and the retarded intelligence quotient evident in its content... Lucas has in fact come closer than anyone could desire to the cheap, graceless, hackneyed sci-fi serials of the '30s and '40s. Predictably, the screenplay would make Buster Crabbe call for a rewrite... This is hardly an epic (a word that implies moral, human, and social weight). It's a marathon of irrelevant preadolescent dreaming... As the nationwide sidewalk camp-outs come to their climax, the maniacal wwwooooooos siren through the theater (even at the Lucasfilm Ltd. logo), and virtually every adult I know admits to a publicity-hammered submission, it's easy to feel like 1984's Winston Smith struggling with 2 + 2 = 5. Why should this invasion of self-ratifying, trans-marketed mythopoeia -- so electrifying and meaningful to so many -- be so inarguably empty and inconsequential? Attack of the Clones is a golden calf, worshiped not out of primitive fear but populist groupthink."
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."
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?
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
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."
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
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
**AA: a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
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.
What is music when you despise all sound?
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.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
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...
Best Slashdot Co
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.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
>
>Did I miss something? I could have sworn no 19 yr old has had to choose between being a Jedi and boinking Nat Portman.
Probably not. So we really don't know what the right choice would be in Anakin's situation.
We can, however, say with some certainty that anyone who's ever had to choose between posting on Slashdot and boinking Natalie Portman, either (a) chose the hot grits, or (b) chose poorly.
...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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
Click here or here.
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.
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.
-no broken link
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.
Revolution = Evolution