Slashdot Mirror


Attack of the Really Big Clones

An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports that Attack of the Clones is coming to an IMAX theatre near you. 50 IMAX commercial venues, and 20-30 science museum sites will begin showing the film on November 1. The IMAX version is expected to add another $20M to the films current $300M take."

278 comments

  1. Maximize the Crap! by toupsie · · Score: 4, Troll

    Now that Star Wars is nothing more than a marketing tool for crappy fast food meals and stupid action figures, it doesn't surprise me that they are going to go "IMAX" to boost the take of AotC so "My Fat Greek Wedding" (A far better movie) won't beat it at the box office this year. Yes, "My Fat Greek Wedding" is better than Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:Maximize the Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMEN!

      "I'll have one Anakin Happy Meal (TM) please!"

    2. Re:Maximize the Crap! by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It was a good movie, but it was actually called My Big Fat Greek Wedding"

    3. Re:Maximize the Crap! by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      "My Fat Greek Wedding" (A far better movie) won't beat it at the box office this year. Yes, "My Fat Greek Wedding" is better than Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.

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

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    4. Re:Maximize the Crap! by toupsie · · Score: 2

      Yea, yea, someone else corrected me as well. :) Its the first chick flick I ever liked. I am still in shock.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    5. Re:Maximize the Crap! by Gehenna_Gehenna · · Score: 2

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

      Speilberg: Poight!

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

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

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

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

      Lucas: ......

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

      --

    6. Re:Maximize the Crap! by wilsonjd · · Score: 1

      For those who are too young to remember: The original "Star Wars" (also known as "A New Hope") INVENTED movie-related product marketing! Star Wars action figures, etc have been around for 25 years!

    7. Re:Maximize the Crap! by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Come on now. Disney's been playing that game for far longer.

    8. Re:Maximize the Crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Come on you fucking faggots, get your god damn nut sacks reattached. My Fat Greek wedding is nothing more than another touchy feely chic flick buttwood is trying to shove down your through. get some balls and see a mans movie..

      fuck heads

  2. Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by gosand · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Honestly, I haven't even seen it yet, and the idea of seeing it on an IMAX doesn't pique my interest at all. You know what? I have survived this long without seeing it. I may not even give Blockbuster my $2.99 when it comes out for rent.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by TheKubrix · · Score: 1

      Brillent review of the movie, and you didn't give out any spoilers either! hurah! Your comment had NOTHING to do with the article, other than trolling about it not interesting you,....well why should it, you havn't even seen it!!

    2. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by JahToasted · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $2.99 is too much... wait for it to come on cable (and only if you have 2 hours to waste).

    3. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by Cy+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I may not even give Blockbuster my $2.99 when it comes out for rent.

      And that will only be 11 days later.

      For those who don't live near an Imax theatre, might I suggest this as an alternative buy the DVD, then sit two feet from the TV while you play it wearing headphones. If that isn't realistic enough, then invite a couple of teenage fan boys over to talk during the movie.

      Then again, who can really complain about a 40' tall Natalie Portman?

    4. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then again, who can really complain about a 40' tall Natalie Portman?

      I could. What fun is it when the notion of "probing" Portman with your "lightsaber" really involves a wetsuit and a flashlight?

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    5. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that system in your sig any good?

    6. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • I'm gay.
      • I love Apple
      • I love nude pictures of McCauley Culkin
      • I'm gay.
      • I love my Mac
      • Harry Potter gives me a boner.
    7. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that system in your sig any good?

      Yep, it's good at giving him a 5% amazon commission, for anyone who visits Amazon and buys anything after clicking his sig. That's what it's good for. Sleazy way to make a buck, IMHO.

    8. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by kableh · · Score: 2

      I enjoyed Episode 2 immensely, especially in comparison to Episode 1. The only complaint I had was that DV sucks. Period.

      However, didn't they have to edit Apollo 13 at the request of Imax and Co.? What parts of Episode 2 would prove "too much"? The scene where Anakin attacks the camp? If they want this process to gain adoption, IFE is going to have to get over some of their qualms about the content of movies.

    9. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by gosand · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Your comment had NOTHING to do with the article, other than trolling about it not interesting you

      I disagree. I am a big Star Wars fan, but I was disgusted with Episode I. Attack of the Clones was reviews as "OK" by most critics. Why would an OK movie need to go to IMAX, and more importantly, why is THAT news? Obviously, it is to get people to see it, and I was commenting that even going to IMAX doesn't make me want to see it. I am part of the Star Wars fanbase.

      I can't believe how many people were indignant with me because I didn't want to see it. People kept asking me "Did you see it yet?" and I would simply reply "No, and I probably won't". Some people were even on the verge of getting upset with me, all because I didn't want to see it. Something is wrong there. Something is wrong in the geek culture where people are derided for not having the stereotypical views. I am a computer geek, but I hate Star Trek. I don't play D&D. That boggles some people's minds, and makes them pissed at me. I just don't get it.

      So say that my post may be offtopic, and doesn't do anything but state my opinion. Well holy crap Maynard, just where do you thing you are? This is Slashdot. Heaven forbid that someone disagree with what is regarded as "the only view".

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    10. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      it's good at giving him a 5% amazon commission,

      Actually its for sale by Target via their Amazon store, which gives me an 8% commission ;^)

      Sleazy way to make a buck, IMHO.

      And who is harmed by it? SlashDot even conveniently labels links now (if you haven't turned the feature off) so you will know I'm just linking to Amazon. Just like countless other web users I am providing free content which is advertising supported. How is this different then putting a link to a personal site that is advertising supported? How else am I to afford SlashDot Premium?

    11. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Of course, if you listen to most critics, the original three sucked as well.

    12. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by EvanED · · Score: 2

      When is Apollo 13 being released? And what parts were edited? Swearing or what?

    13. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      "Honestly, I haven't even seen it yet, and the idea of seeing it on an IMAX doesn't pique my interest at all. "

      Well I, for one, would love to see it on IMAX. I'd love to have the detail blown up so I can nitpick the mistakes in it some more. That way, I can appear to have a more sophisticated sense of taste! Armed with a bigger screen, I can finally prove to my friends once and for all that the movie is total garbage!!

    14. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by kableh · · Score: 2

      From what I can tell it is already out. A quick google turns up this: http://www.bigmoviezone.com/articles/?uniq=91. I can't seem to find it, but I think it was a /. story that mentioned that they edited some swearing. Minor stuff too. Google hasn't indexed it yet, so who knows, I might just be talking out my ass =).

    15. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Actually, the IMDB had a story about Episode II in which they also mentioned that Apollo 13 is going to be released on Sept. 20. (Which doesn't mean that theaters will start running it then.)

      Maddingly though, the closest theater that is scheduled to run it is a good five+ hours away at the Air and Space Museum. Though I certainly wouldn't mind going back, so maybe I'll see if I can get down there. (Apollo 13 is one of my favorite movies, so I would very much like to see it on an Imax screen. And the suggestion someone made of sitting a foot away from the TV is a bad suggestion for a number of reasons. But I'm rambling, so I'll stop.)

    16. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can download it for free (dvd rip) from alt.binaries.movies but you know what?

      It's not worth it.

    17. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      Then again, who can really complain about a 40' tall Natalie Portman?

      err ... my girlfriend, when the sight of a 40' foot tall natalie portman makes me stop holding her hand, and reach out to try and touch screen ... 'so hot, want to touch the hienee' ...

      (ps, i dont know how to spell "hienee", and ive lost adam sandlers home number)

    18. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by kableh · · Score: 2

      I'm lucky in that there are a few theaters around here, including the one at KSC =).

      But enough gloating... I saw The Matrix a while back on an Imax screen. It wasn't transferred to real Imax film, but the sound alone was worth every penny. I came out of the theater with my ears ringing. I think they said it was something like 25K watts! =)

      I have to wonder though, about the transfer from DV to Imax film. During the lame love scene parts of Ep 2 I was really ticked off at the poor quality of the transfer. Any color that was a gradient was blocky, and the entire duration of the film there was 3 or 4 small vertical lines in the picture. It made me think that whatever projector they used to print the film had a couple of panels joined together, and that was a regular theater!

    19. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine how large her nipples will be in "the scene".

    20. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Hmmm... I didn't notice the lines... perhaps it was the projector screen you saw it on?

    21. Re:Haven't seen it yet, IMAX doesn't do it by Curtman · · Score: 1

      There's a 3 disc DVD rip floating around on [insert favorite P2P app here]. I've seen it, and yes $2.99 is far too much.

  3. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by randomErr · · Score: 3, Funny

    then why come here? *click*

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
  4. Great... by Noofus · · Score: 3, Funny

    So Jar Jar is now going to be a BIG pain in the ass instead of just a 'pain in the ass'. Whats next - giant tribbles?

    1. Re:Great... by TheKubrix · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? He was HARDLY in this episode (thank god).

    2. Re:Great... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He was hardly in the episode that is true but one must take notice of the part he played. From the lip of Jar Jar spoke the words that handed over the republic to the emperor.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    3. Re:Great... by NetFu · · Score: 1

      No, I think the proper description for Jar Jar in Episode II is "Big Asshole Tool of Evil".

      If you saw it, you'll be glad like me that they minimized his presence, but pissed like me that this dumb-shit known as "Jar Jar" ended up unwittingly helping the "Dark Side".

      After watching the movie, I just thought That's why he was in Episode I, because they had to have a scapegoat!! Kind of a lame plot-twist, though.

    4. Re:Great... by Noofus · · Score: 2

      You would think a better character would have been responsible for the whole mess with the Empire. I think having Sen. Amedala (or however the hell you spell that) somehow give up the control. Instead she gave the control to that lame, useless, annoying character - who then went and ruined the galaxy for the next 50 years (or so).

    5. Re:Great... by Aldurn · · Score: 1

      Giant Tribbles. There was actually a Star Trek: The Animated Series episode titled something along the lines of "More Troubles with Tribbles". In it, Tribbles grew to very large sizes.

      --
      char sig[120] = "\0"
    6. Re:Great... by aiabx · · Score: 1

      I have to say I was pleased to see Jar-Jar's idiocy taken advantage of by smarter people. Too many times we see the dumb sidekick do the stupid thing that turns out to save the day! That's so cute. But bullshit. In real life, when stupid people do stupid things, disaster follows.

      That having been said, I won't be lining up at the IMAX theatre, since I've already seen the digital projection, and I'm sure the IMAX print will be a step down. And life is too short to sit through the crappy-acted romance *again*.
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    7. Re:Great... by Tassach · · Score: 2

      IIRC, it was "More Tribbles, More Troubles". The novelizations of the Animated series are actually quite good, believe it or not.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  5. Figures by Phoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    George Lucas must be a bit miffed that Spiderman was the bigger hit and is trying to put the final nail in the "who made more money" coffin.

    --
    -- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
    1. Re:Figures by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sorry, but I don't think spiderman has anything to do with it. I think George has bigger fish in mind or would that be hobbits?

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    2. Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope...not taking the bait. Lucas isn't getting a dime from me ever again after Episode 1 crapola. I feel there are some movies that need to be seen in life to gain context to references in other media (Dr Strangelove, All About Eve, Casablanca). I'm of the opinion that nothing George (No-Neck) Lucas does with Star Wars in the future will qualify to be in the can't-be-missed category.

      Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.

    3. Re:Figures by KirkH · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except that Spider-Man made $100 mil more in NA that AotC. An IMAX release ain't gonna make up that difference.

    4. Re:Figures by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      Then he would need to make like another $120 million with this IMAX version... uhhh...

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    5. Re:Figures by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Once again the slashdot moderation system fucks itself. Time to explain. The hobbit reference was clearly showing that the Nov. release of Clones in IMAX will be directly related to the release of the Two Towers right about that time. Also the boxed set of will be out about that time.

      So the parent post was clearly on topic and correct. Please remoderate correctly.

      Thank you

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    6. Re:Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Slashdot. The moderation sucks here. I put you back at +1. Enjoy your stay.

    7. Re:Figures by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      Do you really think AOTC is gonna make up a $100 million difference this way?

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    8. Re:Figures by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

      I hope that Mr. Lucas, like me, couldn't care less. I find it disturbing that anyone that isn't financially involved cares about the box office. If you loved Spider Man, and it made no money at all, would you stop enjoying the film?

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
  6. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by furiousgeorge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    blah blah blah.

    GET OVER IT.

    Yes it was a horrible tragedy.
    Yes we should do what is required to make sure it doesn't happen.

    NO - MOST OF US DON"T WANT TO RELIVE IT EVERY SINGLE FUCKING MINUTE UNTIL THE END OF TIME.

    Gawd - some of you people are like a dog with a tennis ball..... Let it go. In case you haven't noticed, memorials, etc are NOT for the dead. The dead are dead - they don't care. They are for the living. And this country is so ridiculously self absorbed it cannot miss another chance to wring it's hands and wail at the sky about these attackes. Christ - let it go.

    I think Jim Lehrer said it best when he was asked how the media should remember the attacks:

    "As quietly as possible".

  7. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

    Would you rather we discuss ROTJ?

    --

    my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
  8. The Lion King... by skribble · · Score: 2, Informative

    will be coming out on IMAX about the same time too. Could be a good year end for IMAX.

    --
    --- Nothing To See Here ---
    1. Re:The Lion King... by SkankhodBeeblebrox · · Score: 1

      Apollo 13 is coming out on IMAX this month as well

  9. A Dream Come True by cybermace5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Finally...I can completely immerse myself in the sickly sweet meadow scene.

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

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

    --
    ...
    1. Re:A Dream Come True by marauder404 · · Score: 1
      And watch Yoda bounce and skitter across the heads of the audience down in front.
      Actually, I was looking forward to Natalie Portman's Yodas bouncing and skittering across the heads of the audience down in the front. Yum!
    2. Re:A Dream Come True by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely correct. . .

      Instead of getting a two hour quake like headache from watching this movie, I'll get a half day headache. Maybe even a migrane.

      Bigger is not necessarily better. This movie (and I'm not being sarcastic) is best suited for the small screen . . . better resolution . . . and no sick feeling similar to playing first person shooters all afternoon.

    3. Re:A Dream Come True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Some of the more grandiose, expansive scenes will come out nicely though

      Like the scene in the evidently chilly ship cockpit with Portman?

    4. Re:A Dream Come True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, bear in mind that not everyone does get motion sickness from first-person-shooters.

      Of my friends, in fact, only one does. The vast majority can play Unreal Tournament or Counter-Strike or Command & Conquer: Renegade all day with no adverse reactions other than a loss of time sense.

      The guy who does get sick, however, does also get sick from IMAX pictures, just as you suggest.

      The rest of us, however, may well get increased enjoyment of big expansive scenes on an IMAX screen. I've never seen AotC, but I do know that I've enjoyed IMAX pictures in general.

    5. Re:A Dream Come True by Xaoswolf · · Score: 2
      I can completely immerse myself in the sickly sweet meadow scene

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

    6. Re:A Dream Come True by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

      After playing first person shooters all day, I get a strange feeling. I'm lightheaded. And when I close my eyes, I can see the video game still in motion.

      I love IMAX. I'm a big fan of their space Imax movies. It is a wonderful format (if being shot in Imax - big difference)

      My point - I left Attack of the Clones with a nasty headache. A headache I only get when I play FPS all day long. I also got that sick feeling being hopped on caffine. Maybe I wasn't feeling too well in general, but I left the theater reaching for advil. I felt like my eyes were too close to a monitor. I can't imagine that feeling on IMAX.

      This could be a taster's choice sort of thing. I heard people were puking during the Blair Witch Project. But I've never left a theater with a heacache before. But it might just be me.

  10. jeez... by skydude_20 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    those slashdot editors, took my title and still rejected it..
    2002-09-10 16:46:30 Attack of the really big Clones (articles,movies) (rejected)

    --
    Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
    1. Re:jeez... by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

      Happens all the time. Sorry, my friend..........

    2. Re:jeez... by Xzisted · · Score: 1

      Aww...cmon....it wasnt the same title. They capitalized Really and Big whereas you didnt. That is a difference of two ASCII characters. It was also improper use of capitalization when used in conjunction with a title. Just pointing it out.

      --

      Honesty may be the best policy, but apparently by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
  11. Tasty Pixels! by asdfasdfasdfasdf · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    Seriously, though, "Beauty and the beast" was hard to watch in IMAX, because you could see every little artist flaw, and the 1990-era CGI looked really terrible. And 'clones' was shot in 1920x1080, that should make the pixels approxamately, what, one foot square each? Yikes.

    1. Re:Tasty Pixels! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you havent seen Star Wars on digital. There was absolutely no pixelization on the screen whatsoever, because of the process DLP uses to soften the lines. Seeing Star Wars in digital was quite a step up from film, though I have to admit it was the uncompressed 24 bit audio that was most impressive versus film.

    2. Re:Tasty Pixels! by asdfasdfasdfasdf · · Score: 1

      Actually, I did. And you're right, it looked much, much better. However, IMAX is a celluloid process, and doesn't benefit from those features of DLP-- And I find it hard to believe that if they could have done something to lessen the artifacts on the celluloid for the theater, or 95% of the the viewers of this movie, they didn't. So, I fully expect the IMAX version to have these issues, and more.

    3. Re:Tasty Pixels! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exept that after processing the ORIGINAL shots and prepping them for release ALL evidence of pixels are removed. I was working in the pixel removal commity so I know. It is a two stage process involving sulpher and turpentine. Very smelly, but effective.
      Paning

    4. Re:Tasty Pixels! by mjj12 · · Score: 1

      Dunno. I saw it in digital, and I saw a few pixels and didn't think it was anywhere near film in quality. In any event, the properties of the DLP projection are not relevant.

      There are two 'digital' issues here. Firstly, the film was shot on a Sony HDCAM 24p camera with 1920x1080 resolution. Then for digital projection this was downconverted to 1280x1024 resolution and then projected using DLP hardware. For film projection (and presumably for this large format IMAX presentation as well) the original 1920x1080 image was blown up onto film and then projected in the normal way, and the DLP projection process (and its abilities to soften the lines) was not involved at any stage and has no relevance.

      The simple fact is that the lack of resolution of a movie filmed in this way is going to look crap in IMAX. Whether or not the lines are straight, there is just not going to be enough detail. AOTC was filmed with 1080 lines of resolution. 35mm film has the equivalent of about 2000 lines, although there can be no direct comparison between digital and analogue. The large format processes normally used for IMAX have the equivalent of upwards of 4000 lines. You can tell the difference, even on an ordinary sized screen. On a huge IMAX screen it will be much more dramatic. To such an extent that I am wondering what George Lucas has been smoking.

  12. International version? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 2
    There are no plans to distribute the Imax version of "Clones" internationally.
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    Who do I have to beat up with a light saber to get it to Europe (Denmark)?
    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    1. Re:International version? by VivianC · · Score: 3, Funny

      Who do I have to beat up with a light saber to get it to Europe (Denmark)?

      Don't worry. I'm sure the DivX version will be on the P2P networks in a matter of hours after the first show.

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
    2. Re:International version? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

      > I'm sure the DivX version will be on the P2P networks in a matter of hours after the first show.

      Whaddaya mean _after_ the first show? :)

  13. Size Matters by Screamer49 · · Score: 1

    Wonder how tall Yodi is on an IMAX screen...

    1. Re:Size Matters by rczyzewski · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing 20ft. Sweet!

  14. Re:PORN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I hear they have sex in real life now.

  15. Great! by iamchaos · · Score: 1

    Now I can watch horrible directing, actors with bad dialog and no chemistry as well as the use of old ideas. All of these wonderful things on a REALLY BIG SCREEN. Just how I want to spend November 1. ~g

  16. Windex! by toupsie · · Score: 2

    The only marketing in "My Fat Greek Wedding" was the constant plugging of Windex which is one product you rarely see "placed" in a film.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  17. Pixels! by DrXym · · Score: 2

    Who wants to see AOTC on a massive screen? The pixelation was bad enough on a normal screen. Perhaps LucasFilms have developed an advanced interpolation algorithm to overcome the problem.

    1. Re:Pixels! by ProfBooty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i saw it in a digital screen, the image was much clearer, but suffered from the "tron" effect, people just jumped out from the cgi backgrounds pasted behind them.

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

      seeing it in digital did not make it a better movie, but seeing it on an IMAX, if properally formatted might be really nice for the battle scenes.

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  18. Pretty Skimpy on the Details by Murdock037 · · Score: 2

    I know Episode II wasn't the greatest of flicks, but that's a whole huge flamewar waiting to happen. Moving on...

    The real question: The CNN story doesn't list cities where it'll be playing. Anybody find any stories elsewhere that list venues?

    1. Re:Pretty Skimpy on the Details by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

      Considering Edwards Theatres here in Orange County, CA cut half of their IMAX theatres (due to NO ticket sales), I'm sure I'll have to travel to LA or better yet Vegas. :)

      Moviefone.com will have the dates and times sometime soon.

    2. Re:Pretty Skimpy on the Details by Dannon · · Score: 2

      I was wondering the same thing, especially whether it'd be showing in my city. I did a search for "Star Wars" films on the IMAX web site, and only got a documentary on Star Wars special effects. The web sites of companies running local IMAX theaters didn't tell me much, either (except that Apollo 13 is Coming Soon). I'm guessing a formal announcement hasn't been made yet.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    3. Re:Pretty Skimpy on the Details by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      Check out starwars.com.

      While they have not put up a list yet, they used to have a search engine to locate theaters with digital projectors (and other showing theaters as well).

      It seems likely that they will do the same once the IMAX version starts playing.

      Tor

    4. Re:Pretty Skimpy on the Details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you know it won't be in any eurocunt city because socialists are too poor to afford IMAX

  19. I fail to see the point by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2

    Of showing movies shot with the idea of standard movie theater in mind being shown on a IMAX screen. What's the big deal? It's just a bigger screen. I can see that (with exception of Crappy Audio) at a drive in!

    --

    Gorkman

    1. Re:I fail to see the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the drive-ins that are left have moved away from the door hanging speaker and have gone to radio transmission, so the sound limitations are whatever your car stereo can do.

  20. Hmm. All I want for christmas.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a 360 view of Helm's Deep.

    Now *that* would be truly impressive.

    One day, we might view movies in a totally different way. We might don our skin-tight suits, look embarassed as they show off our beer guts, and then say, "Screw it!", heft Narsil, and visit bloody death upon the servants of Orthanc.

    Until then, I want my 360 views.

    Still, I don't think any movie, not even LotR, or even Star Wars, will make 360 views replace current day movies. Sure, it might be cool to look around and see *everything*, but the average person already misses tons of stuff on a simple one-angle flat screen.

  21. didn't need it bigger by Xzzy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I fail to see how blowing up the image and putting me a lot closer to it is going to make it any easier to watch anakin explain to the senator how her skin isn't like sand.

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

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

  22. That's no moon, by uberstool · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a pixel the size of your head!

  23. Re:my boot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck it Trebek!

  24. Not to be a troll... by JahToasted · · Score: 3, Insightful
    That movie was painful enough as it is on the big screen, why torture yourself and watch it on a really, really big screen? On the scale of suckage this is like a blackhole.

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

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

    Alright, mod away, I got karma to burn.

    1. Re:Not to be a troll... by Baikala · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yea, I do...
      Well, Nataly Portman wold have somthing to do too.

      --
      16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
    2. Re:Not to be a troll... by txsable · · Score: 1

      My wife and I actually got to see Star Wars - New Hope (the redone version with extra Han Solo action!) on the IMAX screen in San Antonio, Texas. It was great - the images weren't 'full screen' (imagine - letterboxed on an IMAX?), but the audio was tremendous!

  25. Offtopic - SourceForge by Schnapple · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This is offtopic but I decided to ask this question the next time a Star Wars topic came around.

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

    1. Re:Offtopic - SourceForge by RatBastard · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I'm just sick of the damned ads because they are so pathetically lame. They look like crap I would have designed in high school.

      Geeks don't have to be nerds, you know.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  26. Heh by the+Man+in+Black · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anything to get it over Spider-Man, eh?

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

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

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

    1. Re:Heh by Bryant · · Score: 1

      I bet LotR's victory grates more -- AotC is about 20 million under LotR. And another 20 million would put AotC into the top ten movies of all time list... saving it from being the first SW movie not to make the top ten.

    2. Re:Heh by p3d0 · · Score: 0
      Oh please. "Anything"?

      Good lord, imagine the gall of playing the movie in a theatre. Of all the nerve.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    3. Re:Heh by BTWR · · Score: 1

      the first SW movie not to make the top ten.

      Um... According to this list here, Return of the jedi is at #11 and Empire is #15... So AotC would be the third (of 5) Star wars movies not in the top ten...

    4. Re:Heh by Atlantix · · Score: 1

      Actually, another 20 million would place AotC over both LotR and Harry Potter and give it #8 all time (in the US). That would be a huge ego boost for Lucas since he's been royally trounced by hobbits, a spider, and a kid with glasses in every other way this year. Thankfully, worldwide nothing can save AotC, it's 150 million out of the top ten, 170 behind Spiderman (which is still climbing), 235 behind LotR, and 343 behind Harry Potter.

      --Atlantix2000

    5. Re:Heh by Bryant · · Score: 1

      Return and Empire both made top ten when they were released. I.e., they made the top ten although they do not remain there.

    6. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Return of the jedi is at #11 and Empire is #15...


      But at one time both of those movies were top 10.

    7. Re:Heh by drightler · · Score: 2, Informative
      Gross in Millions
      1. $601 Titanic 1997
      2. $461 Star Wars 1977
      3. $435 E.T. 1982
      4. $431 Star Wars: The Phantom Menace 1999
      5. $404 Spider-Man 2002
      6. $357 Jurassic Park 1993
      7. $330 Forrest Gump 1994
      8. $318 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 2001
      9. $313 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 2001
      10. $313 The Lion King 1994
      11. $309 Return of the Jedi 1983
      12. $306 Independence Day 1996
      13. $301 Star Wars: Attack of the Clones 2002
      14. $293 The Sixth Sense 1999
      15. $290 The Empire Strikes Back 1980
      Looks like "the empire" and "jedi" aren't there either...
      --

      blah blah blah....
      drightler@technicalogic.com
    8. Re:Heh by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Take, off of the list that shows them at 11 and 15, all of the movies that were made after them. Then, check and see where they are.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    9. Re:Heh by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, they don't account for inflation when they calculate the top-grossing films. Also, (IIRC) they don't differentiate between theater ticket sales, merchandizing income, and video sales. A better measure of a movie's market appeal would be number of tickets sold. Likewise, to really rank the earnings of movies accurately, they need to adjust the earnings for inflation.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    10. Re:Heh by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      Even then, it's not a perfect measure. The number of tickets sold by movies released in different years is also affected by the total population, what percentage of people go to the movies, the strength of the economy, the availability of other forms of entertainment, etc.

      The upshot is, there is no perfect relative measure of the material success of a movie. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass how much money a movie makes, because I'm not the one getting the money. Mostly what I care about is whether a movie is entertaining or not. (And, depending on the movie, its other cinematic virtues.) It annoys me more and more that there's far more focus on how much money a movie makes than there is on a movie's content, values, societal impact, etc. (With rare exceptions, like "The Matrix," but even in cases like that, the movie's financial success is what leads to widespread analysis of its content. Perhaps they're inextricable, but why be so interested in how much money "Signs" made this weekend, when a far more useful topic would be its treatment of religious credulity?)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    11. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  27. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Take a chill pill, dude!

    Don't you understand that the best way to fight these grim, bronze-age moralists is to laugh?

    Don't you understand that the perfect answer to Osama is Madonna's butt in your face on a 63" projection TV?

    Speaking of Osama, don't you understand that radical Islam managed to wage a war that lasted less than 90 minutes, beginning at the WTC and ending in a field in Pennsylvania? Not the shortest war in history, but pretty short nonetheless.

    As far as I'm concerned, the proper way to remember 9/11 is to do what Americans do best: PARTY!

    Osama, rotting in his grave, will never forgive us.

    Sorry if this is a bit incoherent, but you hit a little nerve.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  28. i wonder... by gol64738 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

    The IMAX DMR technology resides at IMAX's Toronto data center which processes several hundred gigabytes of data daily and is one of the largest rendering farms in Canada. IMAX uses dozens of Dell PowerEdge 2550 servers running Red Hat Linux for its DMR process, as well as an additional cluster of Dell PowerEdge 2550 servers for testing. IMAX chose Dell PowerEdge servers running Red Hat Linux for its IMAX DMR process because of the easy-to-use industry-standard platform, outstanding price and performance, and superior Dell support."

    1. Re:i wonder... by GoRK · · Score: 2

      Well, wasnt AoTC shot "all digital" ... seems they would not need to remaster a bunch of 35mm film for this one.

      ~GoRK

    2. Re:i wonder... by Target+Drone · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Isn't the biggest problem with transferring regular film to IMAX not in the resolution but in the actual framing of the shots.

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

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

    3. Re:i wonder... by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      Anyone who's willing to see a movie as crappy as AOTC twice has already figured out how to point his eyeballs in two different directions.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    4. Re:i wonder... by GeekLife.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This seems to be saying it is. Using IMAX DMR, anyway. (not sure how that's supposed to stand for Digital reMasteRing, though).

    5. Re:i wonder... by MisterBlister · · Score: 3, Insightful
      i wonder if the original film was converted using the newly developed technology by RedHat called IMAX DMRTM using Dell PowerEdge servers.

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

    6. Re:i wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm amazed no one even mentioned that you need a Dell to use this proprietary DMR software. Linux runs on almost everything, yet only Dell PowerEdge (cheap low-end servers) have the power to convert films to IMAX. Yeah, right.

    7. Re:i wonder... by gol64738 · · Score: 2

      perhaps you are right.. i was under the impression that RedHat helped develop the technology.

    8. Re:i wonder... by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      i know the answer ... its the same as triumph the *something* dog's answer ... WHO GIVES A FUCK!

  29. I seen one movie at an IMAX by Squarewav · · Score: 1

    IT was the scorpian king, I was kinda expecting them to at least blow the image up so that it reached from the left side of the screen to the righ, insted was typical 35mm image on a 70mm screen was presented with the ultimate letter box with 20 or so feet top and bottom and 10 feet left and right so you hade this huge screen with an image smaller then most larger movie theaters, wasnt a total loss the seating lay out was nice in that your view is much higher then the person in front of you and the sound was good, I realy dont expect AOTC to be much better unless they plan on converting it to 3:4 format and blowing it up full screen

  30. Ok, I will see it if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, I will see it if they use the entire half-dome screen and not only that silly squarish format projected onto a smallish part of it. I want it fish-eye all the way.

  31. Ahem... by daeley · · Score: 2

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

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

    Blue! What a surprise!

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  32. MMMMMMM big wars by wastedbrains · · Score: 1

    that will be awesome to see yoda saber fight extra large.

    --
    Dan Mayer: my blog, essays, art, etc
  33. Seen It... by dissonant7 · · Score: 1

    ...at the Mall of Georgia IMAX , right when the movie first came out. Of course, it was merely the normal print shown on an IMAX projector, but it was still pretty nice. They play alot of geeky movies on the IMAX screen there. I also saw Fellowship of the Ring, XXX, and Spiderman on the IMAX screen, and I look forward to seeing The Two Towers, the next James Bond, and the next Star Trek flicks on it. And no, the pixels weren't a foot tall.

  34. It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by Anonym1ty · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

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

    See What I hate about iMax - It isn't really iMax I hate, just what some people do to it.
    1. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      See What I hate about iMax...

      You know what I hate? When somebody consistently screws up a trademark that's easy to get right. It's IMAX, all caps. Not "iMax," which looks like you were typing "iMac" and you fat-fingered it.

    2. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 1, Redundant

      iMax?? Was this the latest cinema display by Apple? More than one iMac?

      No! It's IMAX (all caps), the large screen. When you can't type the name correctly, you tell the audience that you don't really know the topic, and nobody who knows the proper capitalization is going to take your argument seriously. If you were hiring a IT Technician, and an applicant wrote in his resume that he had experience with Windows Nt or Mac Os, would you believe him?

      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    3. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by Peyna · · Score: 1, Redundant
      I hate people that don't know the different between iMax and IMAX, since only one exists.

      Apart from that, my girlfriend just had me take her to Beauty and the Beast at our local IMAX theatre, and I must say that while that certainly wasn't made for IMAX, they did a great job with it. (Actually they brought in many of the original artists to redo a lot of it so that it would look right on IMAX.) I believe they also doubled the amount of pixels or something along those lines. Anyway, you still had the same experience you get with movies filmed specifically for IMAX, to a slightly lesser extent, but it still did add to it.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

      That's the same thing people say about: Virii, boxen and such.

      iMax is perfectly fine to say in a forum such as this... you missed the point! it was intentional! Yes I know IMAX and iMax. Yes people know boxen and virii too. It isn't someone being stupid, these misspelling changes in capitolizations - use of obscure plural forms are intentional!

      But you are not so far off, you did at least made the conenction to the iMac

      This is not an English class

    5. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Man, you're whipped. hehe

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    6. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 1

      Now come on moderators, the parent comment wasn't redundant. Offtopic, maybe, but not redundant. I'm disappointed. But I may as well burn off some karma while complaining!

      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    7. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm, nah, that's the probably the first time in a long time I actually did anything for her.

    8. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      I'd say the fact that this was posted 9 minutes before makes it redundant. Or do you have another definition of redundant?

    9. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by NeMon'ess · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      and the same people who ignore idiots typing in 1337 speak will ignore you because you come across as a stupid mac fanboy

    10. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      You probably also celebrate every time the editors post a duplicate story, and leave spelling errors all over the place. After all, this is just a forum, and there's no reason to try and raise the journalism above the regular BBS out there.

    11. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      That's the same thing people say about: Virii, boxen and such.

      No. See, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were making a consistent but incorrect error. As it turns out, you're just a fucking moron.

      iMax is perfectly fine to say in a forum such as this

      No, it's not. English is case-sensitive. When you say "IMAX," I know what you're talking about. When you say "iMax," I respond with "No such file or directory." Once I get what you're talking about, I have to do a little mental translation between what you wrote and what you actually meant. I have to correct you, in my head, because you did it wrong.

      There's no situation in which consistently replacing "IMAX" with "iMax" is okay. Unless you were trying to be funny. Were you trying to be funny?

      It isn't someone being stupid, these misspelling changes in capitolizations - use of obscure plural forms are intentional!

      Was this sentence also intentional? I don't know where to even begin telling you what's wrong here. What you wrote just barely parses.

      This is not an English class

      That's too bad. If it were, you clearly would not be here.

    12. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 2

      Yeah after I made that other comment I looked down and saw that somebody else wrote the same thing. Oops.

      But look, I can still post at 2! I can take advantage of this karma by posting highly-rated crap. Butt fart butt fart butt fart.

      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    13. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by Anonym1ty · · Score: 1

      You're the kind of person who reads the newspaper and corrects it with a red marking pen and sends it back, aren't you?

      Try speaking the language for once rather than speaking about it

    14. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Hey, look at that. I done made me an enemy. Ah-hyuk.

      You're the kind of person who reads the newspaper and corrects it with a red marking pen and sends it back, aren't you?

      No, because newspapers don't have this kind of mistake in them. Newspaper articles are written by people who have a functional grasp of the English language. They don't misspell, misuse, or mis-capitalize words out of ignorance. On those rare occasions when it does happen, mistakes make it into print only despite the careful diligence of the reporters, editors, typesetters, and others.

      You, on the other hand, are a barely literate mouth-breather who lacks the self-confidence to simply admit that he made a mistake. I have to agree with snoozebutton, who called you a "useless IT fuck." Right on, snooze.

    15. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      You just made a friend. Of course I'm going to need to watch your comments and see if I agree with them, but I appreciate what's written above. I wonder why I didn't get a reply? I'm not ordinarily a grammar nazi, but "iMax" isn't funny, its retarded.

    16. Re:It's going to suck! iMax isn't made for this by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Yeah. I really don't mean to be an ass, but sometimes the only appropriate response is a flame. I personally don't subscribe to the no-first-use policy on ad hominem remarks. This guy, for instance, was just asking for it.

  35. Yodi? (Re:Size Matters) by phorm · · Score: 1

    Who is this Yodi of whom you speak? A great Jedi master was he, until he turned to the dark side? Or perhaps an unknown spawn of the scenes cut from SW2, in which Yoda gets jiggy with JarJar (was their gender firmly established?).

  36. pixel == 0.625 inch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Assuming that the 100 foot wide screen mentioned in the article is correct, and your stat of 1920 pixels wide is also correct then:

    1920 pixels / 100 feet = 19.2 pixels per foot.
    12 inches per foot / 19.2 pixels per foot = 0.625 inches

  37. In other news... by AntiNorm · · Score: 3, Funny

    Slashdot decides that it likes the MPAA after all.

    --

    I pledge allegiance to the flag...
    of the Corporate States of America...
    1. Re:In other news... by Gekko · · Score: 1

      Honestly get some new material. This ohhh my god its monday joke stuff was NEVER funny, and it's even less funny the 1,000,000,000 time I have heard it.

      I wish their was a better system than the MPAA. I wish large scale movies could be made independantly, but they can't. I choose not to like the MPAA or it's actions but I do see movies made artits that are forced to work at studios that are memembers of MPAA.

      The indy movie scene just is not as mature as the indie music scene. Why movies cost a hell of alot more the make well.

      --
      I mod down any one who says "I'm sure I will get modded down for this"
  38. Digital Clones Facts & Figures by asdfasdfasdfasdf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to this site, the average imax screen is 21.5m x 15.6m.

    The resolution of 'Clones' was in the neighborhood of 2000x1000 (2.2 million pixels sony 24p)

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

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

    1. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily pan and scan, last movies I saw on IMAX (years ago, Top Gun and Apocolypse Now) were letterboxed.

      It was just basically a really big screen. You don't experience IMAX unless you see something that was filmed for it.

      BTW the 'pixels' on the Jumbo-Tron at Toronto's SkyDome are about a half a foot square. So long as you're not right up against the screen you wouldn't notice.

    2. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by asdfasdfasdfasdf · · Score: 1

      I can't say for sure, because I didn't see the ones you did, but I think the ones you've seen are the 35MM prints shown on an IMAX screen-- so they are what their original formats were --widescreen.. Beauty and the Beast was actually reproduced on IMAX stock-- and it was letterboxed.

      There've been a couple of movies specifically re-done on IMAX, but not very many.

    3. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2

      You could see the pixelization on an ordinary sized screen with digital projection.

      But anyway, you're assuming that the 2000x1000 is the highest resolution version of the film available. It's probably not. There is probably a "master" version that is a higher resolution. Although aparrantly they made the film version from the digital version in order that the digital version would look better than the film one.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    4. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by zbuffered · · Score: 2

      Okay, how'd you do your math? 1000 pixels tall, 4:3 means 1333 pixels wide. 21.5 x 15.6 = 335.4m^2. With a little division, I get 2.5cm^2 / Pixel. Which, of course, is even worse. Am I wrong?

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    5. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      Bah.
      vertical resolution will be about 1000 pixels per 15.6m, or 1.56 CM each

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    6. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by hopews · · Score: 2, Informative

      1.56cm x 1.56cm = 2.43cm^2 ~= 2.5cm^2

      He was talking length, you were talking area.

      Your numbers agree.

    7. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by Stele · · Score: 1


      No - AOTC was FILMED with HD cameras, so the recorded size is 1080 pixels high. There is no higher-res master.

    8. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by Mind+Socket · · Score: 1

      Perhaps their patent pending technology uses adjacent frames of the film to reliably interpolate reliable additional detail. I've seen this mentioned somewhere previously, unfortunately I can't remember where. (google and slashdot searches failed me :( )

    9. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2

      True, except for the scenes in the desert where the HDTV cameras aparrantly overheated and they had to use film.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    10. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by BitGeek · · Score: 2



      This did not happen. They used HD cameras for the entire shoot. They had film cameras along only because the insurance company required them for backup purposes, but they were never used.

      This is right out of Lucas's mouth when talking about the CinAlta cameras on Sony's promotional DVD.

      Did you make this up, or are you just spreading false information?

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    11. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2

      How do I know you're not the one spreading false information? Maybe you made up your statements. Why should I trust what Lucas says? Why should I go and look at this Sony promotional DVD to hear what Lucas says?

      Ultimately, it doesn't matter. AotC is just a stupid movie, and HDTV cameras aren't good enough to match film, whether they were used for all of AotC or only most of it. For things that do matter, however, it is a good idea to check your sources of information and weigh the reliability of those sources.

      Everyone knows not to trust something you read on slashdot.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    12. Re:Digital Clones Facts & Figures by BitGeek · · Score: 2



      I cited my source. Where did you hear this rumor?
      Hell ,you can go to the star wars website and find any of the press releases--- it has been the Lucas position all along that they filmed AOTC entirely in HD.

      I just figured you had heard the wrong thing, now that you've gotten beligerant about it, I realize you're a luddite out to spread misinformation.

      Well, you got caught this time.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  39. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

    Whoa... put down that fifth cup of coffee and step away from the computer. Go outside and take a deep breath.

    Please don't think for a moment that the /. community is not aware of current political and social affairs. We are. More than you are aware.

    In addition, don't think for a moment that the /. community isn't active in political and social affairs. We are. More than you are aware.

    However, it is not realistic to expect us to discuss only one topic. One issue. One idea. Etc...

    People die, everyday. Nations attack each other, everyday. Children go hungry, everyday. That sucks... but life and work goes on. And so must we.

    So, we discuss "bubble-gum" topics like AOTC going to IMAX.

    Personally, I think it's cool. Seeing a 40 foot tall Yoda will be cool. Does it change what's going on in the Middle-East, Africa, Asia, or Los Angeles? No. Does it make the world a better place? Probably not.
    But it will give my wife and I some enjoyment for a couple of hours. And enjoyment and happiness is what's important, my friend.

    Out.

  40. working conditions at iMax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You all glorify iMax, but you don't think of the atrocities iMax workers have faced at the hands of upper management in the past. The work sucks website has ranked it at number 3 on it's list of cruel employers, and for good reason, too.

    1. Re:working conditions at iMax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that whenever you think you've come across the biggest loser in the world, there's always one who's worse. This guy proves it again.

    2. Re:working conditions at iMax by dotgod · · Score: 1

      You're just mad because you fell for it and went to the site, YOU DUMB BITCH!

    3. Re:working conditions at iMax by dotgod · · Score: 1

      just kidding...i fell for it too.

  41. Question by Tattva · · Score: 3, Funny
    Question:

    Will it still suck?

    --
    personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
    1. Re:Question by racerx509 · · Score: 1

      it will just suck bigger

      --
      13 year old white supremacists are shitty web designers.
  42. Hope it works better than Matrix. by beleg777 · · Score: 2

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

    Also, I'm assuming that the IMAX media won't be showing it in digital format, so I hope that the larger size doesn't just enhance the fact that it wasn't made for the format. The movie looked good in the normal theatre, but considering the picture quality I don't expect it to look better when it's bigger.

    --

    Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
  43. already seen it on imax! by dextr0us · · Score: 1

    I saw it on imax about a month ago.... so i dont know why this is really news. (note, st. george, UT at the Zion National Park IMAX)

    --
    "Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
  44. Re:PORN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget all these fancy schmancy special effect orgies. I want some real orgies on my IMAX.. Can you imagine watching BUTT BANG PRINCESS IX in that huge oval screen? They should make it 3D as well, for extra sensory stimulation.

    Uhh... just what I wanted. Some porn king's jizz shooting off the screen at my face. Eww...

  45. Like many of you... by Stapler · · Score: 1

    Like many of you, I could give a damn, and would rather see something like Two Towers on iMax. Has "A New Hope" even been transferred to iMax? I musta missed it if it has been. How bout doing that instead, Lucas? I know its not about what is artistically worthy, but dammit, can't a man dream?

    Offtopic, but Spider-man made more money because...IT WAS BETTER.

    --
    Kickin' it self-righteous school.
  46. Will it be DLP too? by antdude · · Score: 2

    I didn't see anything about Digital Light Projection. Will IMAX have this too or is it not possible? :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  47. Then on to the good stuff by wytcld · · Score: 2
    Hope they do Space Cowboys soon.

    Also, Pinocchio, the one Disney cartoon masterpiece.

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

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    1. Re:Then on to the good stuff by Nerftoe · · Score: 1
      Hope they do Space Cowboys

      I agree. I especially like the scene where the geezers are in space defusing the bomb or whaetever, and you can see a woman film crew member with no space suit on. Take a look at all the goofs.

  48. Does that mean... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    ... the film will suck 8 times as much? Will the bad guys be 8 times as stupid?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Re:Does that mean... by Stapler · · Score: 1

      All great points. I wonder how much less Ep 3 will make. Maybe it'll only break $250M next go around.

      --
      Kickin' it self-righteous school.
    2. Re:Does that mean... by BTWR · · Score: 1

      Mostly mute points... (I will now take the nerdly assumption that you think ep4, 5 and possibly 6 are much superior to ep1 and 2).

      In Ep4, Why couldn't the Stormtroopers simply look at what garbage chute they fell into and blast them out? Or as you yourself brought up, throw a thermal detonator down?

      Why do the badguys always think that their foolproof plans are always, well... foolproof?
      Ep4 - Death Star is indestructable
      Ep5 - The droid will never think of simply turning a switch and re-activating the hyperdrive at the end
      Ep6 - The Emperor's setup/trap plan will go along EXACTLY as he had hoped

      You know, sometimes weird things DO happen. Why the hell did you buy from that weird online store when you KNEW it was a scam? Why did you answer that test question wrong in 6th grade when you KNEW the right answer? Why did you buy that outfit when you knew you'd never wear it?
      The point is, these are MOVIES (and damn entertaining, IMO - though you're entitled to your opinion on the movie). I never cared about these "holes" you mentioned before, and I don't care now about the ones I just thought of. Just my 2 shekels...

  49. Natalie Portman on a BIGGER screen? by AsianMonkey · · Score: 0

    No, that sticky stuff is NOT gum on your seat. :(

  50. normal film - IMAX != IMAX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make no mistake- this is not an IMAX "version". It is the regular film, projected onto an IMAX screen.

    I watched Final Fantasy(ugh) on an IMAX screen- it was just the regular film, blown up to be really big.

    It was:

    a)dim because a normal projector was trying to cover too big an area

    b)out of focus because the usher was, well, an usher, and not a projectionist(extremely common cost-cutting measure in theaters- they have one, maybe two on-staff, or even chain-wide, projectionists, and they 'train' the ushers. Ushers don't give a crap about how good the film looks, they just need to get back to cleaning up the next theater.)

    c)the image projected was bigger than usual- but of course was normal aspect ratio and did not cover much of the IMAX sphere.

    Even if it had been in focus, grain probably would have been really bad.

    Make no mistake- you CANNOT blow up an image willy-nilly and expect it to look any better. Its just a stupid ploy to fill up IMAX theaters and imply there's something 'better' about seeing it on the IMAX screen.

  51. Science museums?? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

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

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

    GMD

    1. Re:Science museums?? by jimmcq · · Score: 2


      Many IMAX screens are actually in science museums. I assume the museums will get a cut of the ticket sales... that can only be a Good Thing(TM).

    2. Re:Science museums?? by SirWhoopass · · Score: 2
      Lucas "managed to con museums" into the Star Wars: Magic of Myth exhibit? That's going a bit far, don't you think?

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

    3. Re:Science museums?? by Animats · · Score: 2
      Yeah, I was annoyed years ago when, at the Smithsonian, I saw the Odetics ODEX-1, a real six-legged robot and a beautiful piece of engineering, next to an R2-D2 suit. Of course, the R2-D2 suit was getting all the attention.

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

    4. Re:Science museums?? by Bobman1235 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      can anyone give me a good reason why it should be shown in a science museum? That's supposed to be a place for learning facts about the world around you. Not for watching a movie about explosions a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.


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

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

    5. Re:Science museums?? by msheppard · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

      M@

      --
      Krispy Cream is people
    6. Re:Science museums?? by kawika · · Score: 1

      If museums should use their IMAX screens just to maximize revenue, then let's cut to the chase and have them run paid commercials or show porn.

      Most museums have benefactors and patrons that contribute with the idea that they are promoting a non-commercial environment for learning.

    7. Re:Science museums?? by smd4985 · · Score: 1

      there was a Star Wars mythology exhibit here in NYC at the Museum of NH. i didn't catch it personally, but i think it was appreciated as a bonafied exhibit by many.
      my friend who told me about it even hates the current Lucas agenda and production, so i don't think it is a profit/marketing ploy.
      i also just want to say that phantom menace was OK (good in beginning, got weaker) and that AOTC was awesome.

      --
      smd4985
    8. Re:Science museums?? by Masem · · Score: 3, Interesting
      At the Cleveland Science Muesum a few years ago, there was a Star Trek exhibit, showing how 'close' we were to some of the ideas introduced from TOS (some TNG too). Eg: portable lasers aren't impossible, but we're still working on transporters and warp drive, though there are some taking such research seriously. Of course, most of the displays were stylized ala Trek (LCARS displays, TNG-style walls, etc), and several screen grabs from various episodes, information from the tech guides, and so forth, were throughout the exhibit.

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

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

      --
      "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
      "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
    9. Re:Science museums?? by bay43270 · · Score: 2

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

    10. Re:Science museums?? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      Of course, with Star Wars, it's much less *science* fiction, as just science *fiction*, so it would be hard pressed to argue that alone

      Given that the technological level is much lower in Star Wars, and most of the tech in star trek was only explained retroactively (just like star wars, mind you), I don't agree with this statement. They're both more fiction than science, which is okay, as long as you don't try to make them something they aren't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Science museums?? by Monkelectric · · Score: 2
      Am I the only one here who is getting a bit annoyed by LucasFilm's pentration into the museum market?

      and at my (former) university you can take a course on STAR TREK.

      Hopefully AOTC will get a few street urchins into a museum and even beter then that, some of the profits hopefully could FUND the museum. Think of it as a tax on the stupid, those dumb enuf to see the movie support a museum for elitest bastards like myself :)

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  52. Totally. by Captain_Stupendous · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just my quick two cents: I totally agree. MBFGW was a thousand times better than that cereal-pushing, merchandise-spawning, whiny-Canadian-Ptretty-Boy-Starring multi-million dollar fiasco.

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

    I mean, come on. It's STAR WARS, people!

    --


    I am alone, yet I also surf the universal backwash of undifferentiated Being, which is LOVE.
    1. Re:Totally. by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      Just my quick two cents: I totally agree. MBFGW was a thousand times better than that cereal-pushing, merchandise-spawning, whiny-Canadian-Ptretty-Boy-Starring multi-million dollar fiasco.

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

      But I agree it was better than AotC, short of the combat scenes.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    2. Re:Totally. by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering why they're already showing that movie on planes if it's still in the theaters?

      I'm not doubting you, but isn't this rather uncommon? Is it an independent thing?

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    3. Re:Totally. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      They try to keep up on the new releases fairly well on transcontinental flights. That and MBFGW has been in theaters forever. I also got to watch Panic Room and Murder by Numbers. All in all, I got dicked on the movie selection.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    4. Re:Totally. by Lev13than · · Score: 2

      MBFGW was a thousand times better than that cereal-pushing, merchandise-spawning, whiny-Canadian-Ptretty-Boy-Starring multi-million dollar fiasco

      Not to get too far off topic, but the star of MBDGW is also a Canadian - Nia Vardalos. It's also worth noting that IMAX is a Canadian invention...

      --
      When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
    5. Re:Totally. by Tetsujin28 · · Score: 1
      All in all, I got dicked on the movie selection.


      I sympathize. This is why God (or somebody) put a DVD player in my laptop, and anime on DVD....

      --
      - - - -
      The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
    6. Re:Totally. by Captain_Stupendous · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I guess it helps that I'm dating a Greek girl, so we got to laugh at the parts that were true, and even moreso at the parts that were outrageously exaggerated.

      Maybe it's a niche audience :-)

      --


      I am alone, yet I also surf the universal backwash of undifferentiated Being, which is LOVE.
    7. Re:Totally. by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      I dated a greek girl, whose dad was actually rasied in Greece. Maybe it's an american-greek thing, dunno. Also dated a girl whose Godmother was greek, didn't see anything close to what was in the movie.

      Maybe I just got lucky.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  53. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

    Though I would have worded it differently, I agree with this view... In the long run, it is probably more effective to drop huge loads of Beatles CD's and walkmans over these countries rather than straffing them with AC-130's. All it takes is one generation...

    --

    my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
  54. Normal projection field by Yo+Grark · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Listen, not to get your hopes up, but here in Canada (Ontario Place specifically) they've been showing a variety of movies there for years.

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

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

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

    - Yo Grark

    Canadian Bred, with American Buttering

    --
    Canadian Bred with American Buttering
    1. Re:Normal projection field by jimmcq · · Score: 2

      This isn't just the "standard" film on a big screen. The whole point of the article is about the Imax re-formatting of it.

    2. Re:Normal projection field by Fishstick · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      the answer was only a click away:

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

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

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    3. Re:Normal projection field by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How the hell does this get rated +5!!?

      The article says But the lure isn't simply getting to see a bunch of rocket ships and aliens on a 100-foot-wide screen. Imax's new proprietary conversion process allows studios for the first time to cheaply convert live-action motion pictures into a resolution vastly enhanced from conventional images.

      Sheesh. Not reading the article and wondering out loud about what is being done now qualifies as insightful.

  55. Look out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Attack of the really whiny bitches.

  56. Re:Old news by Winterblink · · Score: 0

    The posting's link is to a CNN page, dumbass.

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
  57. Correct me if I'm wrong, but... by PovRayMan · · Score: 1

    ...aren't IMAX screens 1.33:1? Attack of the Clones was 2.35:1, so will they be displayed a Pan/Scan version, or the widescreen?

    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, displaying. I meant to say displaying instead of displayed.

  58. If they'd only do this for one of the OT... by Drogo+Knotwise · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be fantastic to watch a great movie, like ANH, ESB or RotJ on the IMAX, rather than some soppy drivel that came out in the last few years...

    The creator of SW is dead. When TPM came out, the good man that was the creator of SW became the evil George Lucas. Why don't they celebrate the works of the first man, rather than the latter, on the really huge screen?

    1. Re:If they'd only do this for one of the OT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the hell to all those acronymns stand for?

      oh it just hit me those are the first 3 star wars films. Acronymns are lame anyways. AFICTYT (Any fucking idiot can tell you that)

      Yes, I've already seen them on iMax, B2BATOCS. (back to back at the Ontario CineSphere)

      In fact, I've seen them all so many times, that they could project them on the light side of the moon and I wouldn't be interested in watching.

    2. Re:If they'd only do this for one of the OT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your kidding right? Return of the Jedi? Good? What are you smoking? The rancor scene was worse than Jar Jar....I mean damn it was bad- and the 'redone' version didn't touch it, apparently. A New Hope was OK as a sappy love story about a boy and girl that take on the evil bad guys and win. Empire? Now that movie is worthy of mention, provided I can get past Yoda and straight to the Cloud City of Bespin.

  59. I saw Matrix at IMAX by 2000+Britneys · · Score: 1

    That was about 1.5 years ago and let me tell you it rocked. The visuals and sound were incredible.

    The screen size of IMAX creates the illusion of actually being in the movie.

    I will probably will go and see the Apollo 13 movie and LOTR if it ever comes to IMAX. I will skip the Attack of Clones for obvious reasons.

  60. All I know.... by cpex · · Score: 1

    I was three years old an I saw return of the jedi on the big screen so thats good for me. My earliest memory actually. Screw all this new hollywood crap. ( i am excited about two towers coming up)

  61. there is one plus by shren · · Score: 2

    With IMAX, the actors and thier egos will be of the same size!

    --
    Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
  62. Hot Grits The Size of Texas! by RatBastard · · Score: 2

    For that it might almost be worth it. Only if they edit out every scene she's not in and replace the soundtrack with some generic porno soundtrack music.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  63. Nipple-licious by lucky_duck · · Score: 0

    Wow..it'll be great to see Natalie Portman's nipples the size of my head in that nice little white get-up she has going near the end :)

  64. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Baikala · · Score: 1

    So much anger...
    Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering!
    (yea I know the first part is missing)

    jedi master yoda might be, master of syntax yoda isn't

    --
    16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
  65. Yum by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Informative

    Natalie Portman nip-ons in three-story screen glory.

    'Nuff said.

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    1. Re:Yum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      beat me to it!

      but yeah, sweet call...

  66. Cry more, n00b! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [no body]

  67. Commercial IMAX offerings by namespan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are certain films I'd be more than happy to see in IMAX theatres... ATOC probably being one of them, Matrix... anything that's stunning visually and is a good ride. I don't know how much Sense and Sensibility or even some Jackie Chan films would fit in.

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

    --
    Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  68. Ironically by Delphix · · Score: 1

    I saw both movies the same weekend. It was a couple weeks after AotC came out. The theater was pretty empty. The next day, me and a friend went to see My Big Fat Greek Wedding... we were shocked at the turn out. The place was damned full. It was by far a superior movie.

    Star Wars has totally lost me. The first three movies in their original release form is about all I'll watch now. Episode I wasn't very good, and Episode II is more of the same. Putting it on IMAX isn't going to fix the underlying problems with the movie.

    I think someone needs to inform Mr. Lucas that all the special effects in the world can make a bad plot/story any better. Crap in a pretty box is still crap.

  69. The only verson I would like to see by wantedman · · Score: 1

    The only verson I would like to see of AotC, is the MST3K verson, because it actually is bad to make me laugh, with the midget wrestling, that having robot heads making fun of it would be the only way to improve it..

  70. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL go away troll boy..no one here cares or is buying the hypocritical bullshit. If there were actually ANY innocents in the buildings I'd worry, but there were NO DAY care centers there so no chance of any innocents just a bunch of unlucky souls.

  71. SLASHDOT-- ATTACK OF THE REALLY BIG LOSER SLOBS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  72. Do they think that by showing a poor movie by Archfeld · · Score: 2

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

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  73. Fantasia on IMAX by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The IMAX version of Fantasia 2000 was painful. That project was an edit of old and new material. The new stuff had been created at a resolution suitable for IMAX, but blowing the old stuff up to that scale made it look awful.

    1. Re:Fantasia on IMAX by cjpez · · Score: 2

      I was under the impression that Fantasia 2000 was IMAX-only, your post made it sound otherwise. Was I mistaken? On a related note, I do agree that it was awful, though not for quite the same reasons you've stated. It was just a genuinely horrible film. But I should stop now before I get further off-topic. :)

    2. Re:Fantasia on IMAX by RasputinAXP · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, but you're incorrect.

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

      Incidentally, "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" was in 4:3 'standard' ratio since it's from the 30's.

    3. Re:Fantasia on IMAX by UrGeek · · Score: 1

      I drove 160 miles to see Fantasia 2000 on IMAX. Was I EVER disappointed! It reeked and I am not just talking about the Micky Mouse part. After that I had no interest in seeing it on regular 35mm format, but I do recall it was released. It didn't last long.

  74. Museum's Profit? by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

    "20-30 science museum sites"

    A lot of people are complaining that this is a ploy by George to earn himself more money and possibly surpass Spiderman (not gonna happen).

    But, did anyone think maybe the Science Museums showing the film may benefit finacially tremendously? That's only a good thing.

  75. Inconsistent graphics quality in Clones by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    Honestly, despite all the hype over the "mind-blowing special effects" in Attack of the Clones - I also saw a few really poor quality scenes.

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

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

    Why would I want to see this patchwork zoomed up on an IMAX screen, where the flaws become even more apparent?

  76. What idiot modded this "Interesting"!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try checking a link before you moderate. It's a goatse.cx troll, idiots.

  77. Better yet... by Markgor · · Score: 1

    ...I'd rather watch porn on IMAX. It would certainly be an *educational* experience.

  78. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quietly,
    Quietly,
    Quiet, L-Y.

    No, wait, sorry. That was Tom Lehrer.

  79. Trench Run.. by YT · · Score: 1

    The trench run and the tunnel run would be cool to see on IMAX.

  80. MOD PARENT UP YOUR ASS!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick! Before someone else does!

  81. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's interesting that as we get older we get so cynical. Everyone loved the first three which were every bit as cheesy. I guess it's super slashdot-cool to hate movies though (just read responses to ANY movie discussed here). I'll increase my standing here just by harping on any movie released.

    Or.. I could just continue to enjoy and escape in the magic of the movies..

    Tough choice.

    I wonder who's happier?

  82. This may answer the question by Spy4MS · · Score: 1
  83. Sigh by Bryant · · Score: 1

    Note the fine difference between "made" and "remain in."

  84. Non-commerical environment & IMAX idle time by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2

    Most museums have benefactors and patrons that contribute with the idea that they are promoting a non-commercial environment for learning.

    Thanks, kawika, for bringing that up. I never really said it in my original post but I was thinking that if I was some rich dude giving money to a museum and then found out they were showing Star Wars films, I'd be mucho pissedo (that's spanish for "very upset").

    A number of people have stated something along the lines of "if IMAX is idle, then what's the harm?" I admit I don't live in a city with an IMAX theatre in the museum (although I have been to ones) so I'll have to ask: is the IMAX ever idle? I'm guessing that there's no shortage of documentaries that can be shown in these museums. So I'm guessing some learning-thing got bumped to make way for Lucas. Second, even if the IMAX is idle, I'm still not that comfortable with them showing Star Wars during regular museum hours. After watching a bunch of stuff get blown up onscreen, I imagine that it's pretty hard to find the educational aspects of the museum interesting at all. It kind of spoils the atmosphere of learning and wonder.

    Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I was just surprised that no one was commenting on the silliness of showing science fiction in a science museum. Now, it would be way cool if people left the theatre and walked along a hallway explaining the scientific inaccuracies of Sci-Fi films (noise in space, etc.).

    GMD

    1. Re:Non-commerical environment & IMAX idle time by DLWormwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I was just surprised that no one was commenting on the silliness of showing science fiction in a science museum. Now, it would be way cool if people left the theatre and walked along a hallway explaining the scientific inaccuracies of Sci-Fi films (noise in space, etc.).

      You may be on to something about a "Sci-Fi vs Sci-Reality" exhibit. However, you're forgetting that many Science museums are actually "Science And Industry" museums. Both the Chicago Museum of S & I and COSI in Columbus, Ohio will regularly do exhibits about popular culture. Over the years, I've have been to or heard about exhibits covering P. T. Barnum circuses, Cracker Jack trinkets, Commodore 64 computing, Jim Henson "Muppetry," and Lego Mindstorms.

      As for contributors and sponsorship, the majority of funding to science museums comes from corporations. There was a recent exhibit at CMSI about computing which had obvious sponsorship by the likes of Sun, Cisco, and IBM; I also frequently see Apple hardware in obvious placement at many multimedia stations.

      This particular kind of museum has been commercial for as long as they have existed; it's usually the Natural History type museums that have the more academic culture related to them. Even then, they are not immune; the Chicago Field Museum has an exhibit on chocolate, including a section on candy bar advertising. In this age of Disneyland and Six Flags, these attractions have to resort to flash to compete.

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
    2. Re:Non-commerical environment & IMAX idle time by jimmcq · · Score: 2

      is the IMAX ever idle?

      Generally they just show the same stuff over and over and over again for months on end. They definitely need more content.

      Just because they are showing Star Wars doesn't mean that the other films go away. They may only show Star Wars at night (when the museum itself is closed) and show the standard documentary museum stuff during the day.

  85. MOD THIS DOWN. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD DOWN.

    Goatse.cx troll :P

  86. Ass - Head = Logical conclusion? by Tokerat · · Score: 2

    Sorry to be so blunt, but honestly.

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

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

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

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  87. Edited? by Cyno01 · · Score: 2

    Are they goign to be editing AotC for content? A /. article not to long ago said they were editing the IMAX release of Apollo 13, i think a couple of swears would upset a lot fewer people than a kid picking up his fathers decapitated head.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  88. Willam Shatner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coolness!

    I can't wait - hope it plays at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago...

    This will beat the last flick I saw there, "the seasons" or something similar, hosted by William Shatner.

    They really had to bend to make it cool - example, they slowly approached a flower, then shot down the stem - gave you the illusion of motion, which was cool, but come on, a flower??

    Seeing a 75 foot grashooper was cool though! Always nice to see something so big, that you can't take it in unless you scan from left to right, top to bottom.

  89. If AOTC was crap, all of StarWars is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'Now' that StarWars is nothing more than a marketing tool for crappy fast food meals and stupid action figures you say? Do we really need a time machine to remind all the people who complain about the marketing about the original trilogy? Collectable glasses, sleeping bags, and R2D2 underoos were everywhere. There was an action figure for every character who appeared on screen for half a second, even if they only appeared from the waist up or even less. People who bash the acting are just oblivious as to the roles that the actors were portraying - they're not just 'Mom and Dad Skywalker'. If you take into account these characters personal lives, or rather lack thereof, it becomes clear that the actors actually did quite a good job in their roles - but if you can take a step back from your childhood and try to look at things objectivle, you might realize that the acting in the original trilogy wasn't exactly oscar worthy either. But after all that, let me remind you that StarWars is not and never has been 'high art'. It's action/adventure about the struggle between good and evil, with exposition into the lives of those caught in that struggle. The other key ingredient has always been special effects. They pushed technology in the original trilogy, just as they are doing now. When it becomes possible, try sitting down and watching Episodes I - III as many times as you have probably seen IV-VI in your life. You may find your prejudices slipping away.

    1. Re:If AOTC was crap, all of StarWars is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty positive half of slashdot is still wearing r2d2 underoos.

    2. Re:If AOTC was crap, all of StarWars is crap by Oztun · · Score: 2

      This was a good post and I agree completely. Next time divide your post into paragraphs so more people will take time to read it.

  90. Capitalizing cm doesn't make it bold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It transforms it into megacoulombs. The metric system is case sensitive, just like your Linux filesystem.

  91. Really big N.P. nipple shot. by aardvaark · · Score: 2

    Only reason I might be interested in the IMAX version. :-)

    --
    If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide. -Ghandi
  92. Imax now, not before. by markwelch · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Hmm. When most of the big blockbuster movies are released, my local Regal Cinemas offers them on the Imax screen, at least one showing per day -- thus I saw Pearl Harbor on Imax, and at least one other (plus Gladiator, but that was its special re-release for Imax).

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

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

    --
    -- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
  93. THE FORGE IS STRONG IN THIS ONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You'd better believe it.

  94. Dumb movie blown up to larger size by themurray · · Score: 1

    Now if they did the first three movies I would be excited, but to do any of the new series is an example of Lucas just rubbing it in our faces. Bastard!

  95. worst episode ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...rest assured I was on the internet within minutes, registering my disgust throughout the world.

    I've already given George Lucas $15 for this piece of shit, I'll pass on the IMAX version. A really big screen doesn't hide how horrible this movie is.

    The series died in 1983.

  96. What the hell??? by Hott+of+the+World · · Score: 2

    What's Godzilla doing with a lightsaber!!!

    Oh, wait, thats yoda... cool!

    --
    | - | - |
  97. Re: LotR:FotR in IMAX has already appeared by Blondie-Wan · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring has in fact been shown in IMAX already. I don't know how many theaters had it, but I do know the IMAX theater in Tampa, Florida had it this past spring. Sadly, I found out about it on the last day of exhibition, and couldn't go. :( It was supposedly quite a treat, from what I've read - none of the graininess one would expect from blowing up the image, apparently. I don't know whether it used the process described here, though.

  98. Do you know what this means! by CainX · · Score: 1

    Bad acting on a scale never before imagined.

  99. IMAX sucks by dasboy · · Score: 1

    That stupid curved screen; those uncomfortable seats with your head cocked back scanning all that stuff you can't see because you're too damned close to the screen. Who needs that! I have NEVER had an immersive experience in an IMAX theater; I am always totally aware of the screen and the people around me. I am always wondering when the damned thing will end. Which leaves me with the conclusion that no one here will admit: IMAX sucks, and 2 hours of SWE2:AOTC will suck just that much more.

  100. Re:PORN by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

    can anyone tell me what its like to have sex? a friend of mine wants to know.

  101. Bathroom breaks? by sheared · · Score: 1

    Every time I've been to an IMAX movie, they tell the audience that if you get up to leave during the show - tough luck, you're not getting back in. Attack of the Clones is what, 2 1/2 hours long? My bladder will EXPLODE in that amount of time..... I'll have to hold off on all the water before hand or make sure to work out for a very long time before I go (to sweat out all that extra water).

  102. Anakin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I guess this will make the guy who played Anakin look like an even bigger idiot?

  103. Marketing Schmarketing! by SparkyMartin · · Score: 1

    Now that Star Wars is nothing more than a marketing tool for crappy fast food meals and stupid action figures,

    As if any other big movie doesn't market itself heavily.

    I for one am really looking forward to seeing Clones on an IMAX screen, though it will make the DVD seem pretty crappy.

  104. FIVE WEEKS? by UrGeek · · Score: 1

    "But the frame-by-frame conversion process takes at least five weeks" Ye GAWDS! And I thought Divx conversions were slow.

  105. Arithmetic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when does 82M equal 300M?

    It may or may not be better, but there's no chance of MBFGW "beating" AotC at the box office.

  106. Re: LotR:FotR in IMAX has already appeared by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    really ?!?! There is one here in SF but I never heard anything ARGHHHHhhh

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  107. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    No, YOU get your priorities straight!

    The events of this week last year have changed NOTHING, except for the fact that Bush and his cronies have been able to go apeshit over national
    security, putting into place laws that enable him to spy on and arrest anybody he feels like, and also now he's able to complete the job Daddy
    couldn't by waging war on Iraq.

    Phil Maher of Politically Incorrect was right!

    For fuck's sakes, it was only 2700 people! As sad as it may be, and I do truly feel for the many families involved, it was only a slightly larger
    scale version of Air India, Lockerbie or, for that matter, some freak hijacking a bus full of passengers and slamming it into a corner store,
    collapsing the roof! This wasn't the Holocaust, and doesn't compare to the genocides that happened in the Balkans or Rwanda. How can you even compare
    the two types of events? How many CHILDREN does Bush's foreign policy kill daily? Why are you not getting so stupid over other tragic events caused by terrorism? Why are you trying to make the significance of NOVEMBER the 11th pale in comparison, with all these maudlin memorials?

    What really gets me is the fact that America has learned NOTHING from the events over the past year. Do you idiots not have a clue as to why these
    terrorists are attacking you guys, and not other western countries? It doesn't have anything to do with faith, nor the western way of life, nor
    capitalism. If it was any of these things, they'd be just as likely to fell the CN Tower or crash into Buckingham Palace or Versailles, or any other Embassy except yours. No, it's because your government, over the past few decades, has chosen to meddle in the affairs of the middle east, and ensewhere, propping up whatever dictator-du-jour best suits the American interests at the time. You guys put Saddam Hussein in place. Your beloved CIA trained Osama Bin Laden and supplied him with
    weapons. Unwrap yourselves from that fucking flag of yours and THINK ABOUT IT for once! Your foolishness has cost the lives of 2700 innocents! How many more have to die or live in your self imposed police state--and make no mistake, that's exactly what Baby Bush wants--before you people get a fucking clue?

    Perhaps, if all those idiots who voted for Gore had voted for Nader, this might not have happened!