Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Episode III Spoiler Photos
XSSIV writes "Amazing new spoiler filled imagery from next year's Star Wars: Episode III can be found at the
MovieWeb
Star Wars III Detail Page. Here is the
Gallery for Star Wars III Images" There are a couple of cool shots that cross into spoiler territory (although only if you don't know the Chewbacca is Luke's true biological mother).
Nobody's going to feel really bad about seeing those, as George Lucas has turned Star Wars into a franchise to hock his wares.
At least with the original three, that just happened naturally.
Just took a look over there and I didn't see anything I'd call a spoiler. Some concept sketches and the like for various machines...maybe a baby AT-ST? A couple city-scapes... A picture of (I'm assuming) Annakin looking fairly unhealthy... Nothing terribly spoiling or surprising over there. Did I miss something?
yrs,
Ephemeriis
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Be like me: if you regard Ep.3 as a kind of CG coffee-table-book, you'll get more enjoyment out of it. Set expectations of plot to zero and you can't be disappointed, right?
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Most of the spoilers are in previous articles from the looks of things. Can't see many spoilers in their "huge new spoiler filled photos" though - media manipulation perfected.
No. I imagine its a young Anakin come Darth Vader. Obviously something had to happen to him to require the suit.
I still don't understand how there could be spoilers for movies which are prequels. There were three movies made over 20 years ago, which established a plot arc to which these new prequels must match up. This is not to say we don't know the ending. We know the ending vary well. The question is, will the middle of the star wars mythos do justice to the end? Will it honor the spirit of the ending with which we are so familiar or will the release of this movie, which defines the middle of the story arc, simply serve to cheapen the experience of those of us who so enjoyed the original three movies? Only time will tell. While we wait though, we can still enjoy the originals and simply hope beyond hope that George Lucas won't further damage the mythos and cheapen the great work he produced early in his career.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Seems if i try to view an image all i get is some damned pop-up ad
You need to go here first then: mozilla.org
is that this sorry series will be over, at least the George Lucas part of it. Here's hoping 7-9 will be given to someone with some real edge, like Stephen Spielberg (whose AI or Minority Report films shows how to do intelligent and thought provoking Sci-Fi), or Peter Jackson, who singlehandedly blew away the Star Wars franchise, by revealing the richness and origins of the Star Wars mythology with LOTR. Instead of working on the depth of the mythos, which is what the fans are after, Lucas instead overwhelms us with superficial details--pod racers, giant fighting robots, wookies, talking lizards. By the time the film comes out, why bother? You've already seen it before, only louder and bigger.
The metaphors fly fast and thick, and probably without intention on the part of the creators. It is certainly a shame that Lucas has lost his creative balancing mechanism, --which I believe, consisted of several people who had both the ability to argue with him and the power to make those arguments stick. That's not the case anymore.
I wonder what moral is like over at the Ranch. . ? There are some really smart people working on these films. It must be frustrating to be tied into serving a broken machine.
Still, I am certainly looking forward to the next film. It'll be neat to see how it all plays out. You can map the rise and fall of the U.S. and the world on the parallels presented in the Star Wars prequals.
Has anybody ever tried a Phantom Edit of the second film? I might give it a shot; although, I have a sneaking suspicion that I'd only be left with about 50 minutes of footage after all the chops necessary in that monster of a mistake! I'd chop whole battles, like that idiot thing with Yoda and whoever the hell that guy was with the bent saber. What the heck was that scene even there for? Too bad it's not possible to change Anakin from a weenie girli-boy into an actual figure of threat and power.
Hmm. . . Maybe I'd only be left with 30 minutes. Still, it's amazing what can be done with a pair of scissors. The Phantom Edit of the first film was an amazing tribute to the power of good editing!
Perhaps if one were to combine the 'Attack of the Clones' with the upcoming film, there will be enough material to hybridize into a whole feature.
We'll see.
Wouldn't it be weird if the third one does suck at all?
Whoa. . !
-FL
This argument is flawed - you just can't compare books and films in that way. Sure they both tell a story, but the constraints, and media are just too different. I've read some sci-fi, well quite a lot to be honest and whilst I'd agree that the plot of Star Wars isn't amazingly twisted and probably doesn't work too well as a 1000 page book - it was perfect for it's medium: film.
:-/ )
Movies should evoke emotions and with the good old good vs evil, the legacy, the gimmick (the force)and the mentor/apprentice thing going on, it evoked the right emotions at the right points in the film. (Mind you I always felt Obi Wan could have put up a bit of a fight, even if he was getting on a bit
It's a film, not a book. I'm not saying books don't translate to the film - LOTR managed it really well, but the keyword there is "translate". Peter Jackson couldn't just film every little bit and include every bit of dialogue and have the audience still awake at the end of his 50 hour flick - he and the other script writers had to tranbslate it for the screen. The same would be tru of all Sci-Fi lit with involved plots. Imagine a film of Heinlein's "Number of The beast" - I couldn't remember what the hell that was about 2 weeks after I read it, but it made sense while I was reading it.
StarWars was a nice sized plot with a bit of intrigue and some great characters. It didn't have a big budget, and Lucas chnaged the story several times to fit with the cash he had. Up until then space had been "clean" with no mving parts. StarWars showed vehicles that looked like they actually had engines and nechanical parts in them - they looked like they would work on an engineering level. And there was dirt, for the first time in a SciFi flick, ships had dirt from being used - the habitats looked lived in. My own 2 penneth on the prequels is that they lack everyday charcters - everybodies a queen or a senator or a Jedi Kight, so they all talk in a formal way which makes the dialogue seem wooden. Where are the Han Solo type characters? It's like looking at life through the pages of a history book - tales of Kings and Queens always seem regal in the books, but between the glorious and famous events recorded in the chronicles of history, I bet there was a lot of nose picking, scratching of arses and general mundane nothingness. We don't see much "life" going on in the new SW movies. In the original movies, at least there were some farmers, the odd used ship dealer (implied) and some general working class dudes you could identify with. Ep V had possibly the best script, dialogue and character development of them all - largly due to the presence of Solo and the fliting with old bun chops.
I still like the new movies though, as long as I stick my "this is not really a kids movie - you are not sad for watching this age 34" filter on. I am looking forward to EPIII - I'll watch it for what it is - and then watch the original trlogy on DVD (hopefully)!
If these are prequels, then why does everything look more technologically advanced compared to the original trilogy??? I'm so confused...
I hate to make excuses for them, but I would guess that this is because the Empire is a time primarily of cultural and economic decay, not advancement. Probably a moral in there somewhere. And yeah, that "primarily" excuses one-offs like the Death Star being developed.
accidental master piece all I can say about the first 3
Kubrick wrote all three endings, and if you thought the last was candy-coated, brother, you weren't paying attention.
Both sides seem to be devoid of information when I went to visit them.
/home/www/lightsout/movies/galleries.php on line 99
/home/www/lightsout/movies/galleries.php on line 100
/home/www/lightsout/movies/galleries.php on line 140"
:)
The movie page seems to be a mockup with links going to news items. Hardly interesting.
The image gallery apparently broke:
"Warning: opendir(/home/www/media/galleries/7/1692/thumbs): failed to open dir: No such file or directory in
Warning: readdir(): supplied argument is not a valid Directory resource in
Warning: closedir(): supplied argument is not a valid Directory resource in
I think the gallay has been removed or disabled in some fashion. Must be the Sith at work again clouding things.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
All this (eps1-3) stuff, meaning the ships and tech and other sorts of things just seem far too madern for my taste. I mean all of this is supposed have happened prior to eps 4-6 so why does nearly everything seem to look more advanced? Bogus in my opinion, I would much rather have seen ships and gear that somewhat obviously predate the stuff of Star Wars.
SW is a nice idea just apallingly badly done most of the time. The only reason we get so excited is that the sci-fi film genre is *so* badly served with horrible derivative works it makes SW seem ok.
kudos for Lucas for originally having the sage storyline and hiring some damn talented designers to put a unique feel on the films and superb effects for the time. And great music. But if he gets too far involved, it just sucks. Sorry George.
quick summary:
Ep4: poor directing, awful script, okish film
Ep5: good! somebody else writes and directs (take the hint please)
Ep6: Ok film, somebody else directs. bad dialogue is back thanks to georgey boy working on the screenplay again. story rear ended for commerical gain by adding the ewoks
Ep1: Atrocious. Hes back writing on his own and DIRECTING. Dammit george you were not very good to start with and its been 22 YEARS since you last directed anything. story again rammed in the chocolate starfish with the commericalisation of the pod racing scene (which takes up about 50% of the film it seems). pick a totally appaling actor for annakin. Take some of the best acting talent and turn them into cardboard with bloody awful directing and bad script. Hell I can't even remember what happens in this film apart from the pod race.
Ep2: A bit better, i.e. watchable. Script a bit better as hes working with somebody again for the screenplay. again choose an awful annakin. Whats now odd about this is that I can't think of a single point without music in the film. probably why the film seems better as the great music can actually make you feel the emotions that the script and directing cannot.
I don't know why he returned to the writing/directing roles, surely he realised that 5&6 were better than 3? Why couldn't he have turfed the directing/screenplay over to better people? He could have kept his repuation as a god, and become a benevolant god at that. What possessed him to do it?
To leave on a positive note, at least nothing else looks like star wars, it's too 'in your face' to copy. Unlike Alien which although a great film, every spacecraft interior now looks like it's out of Alien and unfortunately it seems a hell of a lot of stories just copy it as well...
So, I guess your definition of sci-fi is too narrow to include guys like Robert Heinlein and H.G. Wells and Jack Chalker? Arthur C. Clarke invented the satellite and all, so he probably gets to stay, and maybe Larry Niven and Neal Stephenson; but what about Isaac Asimov? I mean, how much real science was there in Foundation?
Why do we need to be so exclusionary with the genre title? Is there a generally accepted standard list of criteria from which you believe space epics like Star Wars diverge, or is this just a troll?
Thanks, but I'll wait until it's on Free-to-air.
Being old enought o remember seeing each of the original three movies in their debut on the big screen, I can being excited when Empire came out, the Return. I remember thinking it was everyting I wanted. han got the girl, Luke was the shit (not really but he was supposed to be, GO HAN) any way, The sory is going along pretty much as I read it about 12 years ago. All that remains is the final battle which from what I read then wa balls out! lucas did a story which all other scifi is and will measured. No matter what is said here you all be be there next year with tix. I no I will be. I just hope that George will do the right thing and finish the story. That or let someone else do it.
Life is too short to crash.
Please, stop calling Star Wars "science fiction". It is not. It's futuristic fantasy at best (spare me the "a long time ago" crap. It's futuristic compared to present Earth).
Star Wars is fiction, and has nothing to do with science.
What's futuristic about it? The... style of clothing? Because, by your argument, it can't be the science or the technology. If that were the case it would be fiction which makes use of speculation on technology/science to frame the story or locale. Well, at the local library, they file that under 'science fiction'. The books about dragons and wizards go under the 'fantasy' card.
So you can't be bothered to be anal retentive about the 'future' bit, that's "crap" (but somewhere there's a futurist analogue to you who is cursing you for such heresy), but you can with the 'science' part? You're OK with 'futuristic fantasy' despite the author's assertion that the story has no relation to Earth or our future, yet calling it 'science fiction' gets you worked up because there's no scientific speculation (which is arguable no matter how hokey you perceive Lucas's writing)? Let's just say "in your estimation".
If you were arguing the age old notion that there is no such thing as science fiction, only 'speculative fiction', that's one thing. But it's seems you just have a problem with [what you perceive as] the sullying of the word science by its mixing with anything you deem as fantasy (is it the goofy wizard-like Jedi?). I have to assume, then, that what some call 'hard SciFi' is the only thing you would endorse as 'science fiction'. But in the end "science fiction" is a genre identifier and Star Wars is within it according to the author(s), distributors, cataloguers, classifiers and, yes, buying public.
I'm not a Star Wars fangirl and that's not my motivation for replying. Defending Lucas isn't real high on my list of priorities. But I am an avid reader of the genre. Saying a moose in Fiji is not a moose because your experience says all moose live in Canada doesn't change the moose.
Star Wars is science fiction because that's what we say it is, not because it took some test and scored higher in maths and sciences than the Dragonrider books.
- I am made of meat.