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.
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."
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?
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
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.